December

2, 1994

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 74

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

I wish to make a ruling on a point of privilege raised by the

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl on Wednesday, November 30. At that time, the

hon. member raised a point of privilege relating to the former point of

privilege raised by him on December 7 1993, which was the subject of a ruling in

this hon. House on December 16 1993.

Essentially, he alleges that because the Minister of Finance

and Treasury Board made a statement referring to a matter before the courts, it

substantiates his claims that his privileges have been breached when the Public

Accounts Committee did not proceed with hearings related to the same matter.

The member's original allegation was, and I quote: The Public

Accounts Committee had deprived him of his right to freedom of speech by

incorrectly applying the sub judice convention. That is a convention, of course,

which, in parliamentary terms, disallows questions and hearings related to

matters pending before the court in fairly stringent and strict circumstances.

I ruled at the time that, in my view, the sub judice

convention did not apply to the committee's proposed hearings, and the fact that

two civil law suits had been filed did not, under our rules, by law or

convention preclude the Public Accounts Committee from proceeding with its

hearings on the awarding of the contracts. However, the Speaker at the time did

not have, and still does not have procedural control over the Public Accounts

Committee, and therefore, no authority to direct it either to proceed or to

postpone. Consequently, there was no prima facie case of breach of privilege

made out at that time.

The fact that questions have subsequently been asked and

answers given here in this House with respect to the same matter does not

impinge upon or enlarge the hon. member's claim for privilege. Inasmuch as the

sub judice convention did not preclude the Public Accounts Committee from

hearing the matter, neither does that convention prevent the matter being raised

in this House. Furthermore, nothing has happened in this hon. House to extend

the Speaker's control and authority to direct the Public Accounts Committee. For

these reasons, the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl has not established a prima

facie case of breach of privilege.

At the same time, the hon. the Government House Leader raised

a point of order that the Member for Mount Pearl had cast aspersions on the

Member for Eagle River when he said, and I quote again: "...the Member for Eagle

River, who was vice-chair at the time, has his reward now as parliamentary

secretary to the Premier." While I am mindful of the need to preserve order, the

remark, in my view, falls into the area of unpleasant rather than

unparliamentary. I make this ruling in the full confidence that the hon. the

Member for Eagle River has a sufficiently thick skin to endure this slight to

his dignity, and a sharp enough wit to cause the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl

similar discomfort on a future occasion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly to ask all

members of this hon. House to join with, I am confident, all Canadians in

expressing deep regret at the occurrence of the malady which has struck the

Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, Mr. Bouchard. I would ask all

members also to endorse a message of encouragement and support, both to Mr.

Bouchard and to his family.

While one may have substantial political differences with

individuals, at times like this personal views and support, I believe, are

warranted and I would ask this House to express it and to express the sincere

wish that Mr. Bouchard fully recover as quickly as possible.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier spoke to me about this just before the House

opened, and I, quite frankly, thought it would be an appropriate thing to do

anyway. I was thinking about it last night myself, in seeing the news reports

and so on.

I guess, as the Premier says, we certainly have our political

differences with his party's position on politics, but all of that needs to be

cast aside at this particular time. He is the Leader of the Opposition in the

House of Commons, and I think it would be very appropriate for this House or

Your Honour to express best wishes, I guess, is the best way to put it, because

we all hope that he pulls through and that he has many years ahead of him, so I

think the message to his family would be appropriate.

I have some feeling for what he may be going through, even

though what has happened to him with respect to an amputation of his leg, it was

caused by something different from what happened to my own father, who lost both

of his legs. I know what a difficult period of time that is for a family, but I

do hope that he pulls through and recovers fully from this, and we would like to

be associated with the Premier's suggestion.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today on a

point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that my privileges as a Member of the

House of Assembly were infringed upon yesterday by comments passed by the hon.

the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

I quote from Hansard, December 1: "By way of example again,

the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes today in presenting the petition

did not - I understand he also took the point again rather than just deal with

the merits of the case." Further down, he stated that: "...they are more

interested in trying to get political brownie points in some instances than

dealing with the issues." Further down again, he commented that: "He ridiculed

and pooh-poohed the government's efforts of a year or so ago..." He said also,

Mr. Speaker, concerning the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations:

"...they get up and say, `Well, he shouldn't be running off to Ottawa. He

shouldn't be going to Halifax, and so on, he should be doing something about

it.' If he didn't go, Mr. Speaker, the very same people would be up saying, `Why

isn't the minister in Ottawa trying to get some help with this? Why isn't he

over in Halifax...?"

Mr. Speaker, I refer to Hansard of November 23, November 25

and December 1, when I presented three petitions on behalf of the District of

St. Mary's - The Capes. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that on November 23, I

stated: " I am sure the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations would like

to announce a program, but I guess he has to consult with his Cabinet colleagues

in order to do that. I know he would like to do something, so I stress to the

other members of Cabinet here today, that this is important. It is not to be

passed off as a joke. It is very important to the people of the Province, and

very important to the people in my district who are seeking employment at this

time."

On November 25, Mr. Speaker, I stated: "I am pleased to know

that the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is in Ottawa now

trying to work out some type of deal with the Federal Government on a

cost-shared agreement...but, at the same time, I think the onus is on the

Provincial Government to come forward with some dollars, too."

"I hope the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

returns from Ottawa with some good news..."

On December 1, Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as a matter of fact,

when I was speaking on my petition, I said: "I am very pleased that the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations is in Halifax again today, doing his duty as

a minister to find employment for the people of this Province..."

Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House of

Assembly, I have a duty to present petitions on behalf of the people in my

district. My experience over the past year-and-a-half here, has led me to

believe that the only direct voice, and I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the only direct

voice of the people of this Province is heard through petitions in the House of

Assembly; after all, this is the people's House.

Some members opposite may find it hilarious, Mr. Speaker,

when we stand here day after day, bringing forward petitions from the people in

our districts who are seeking an emergency employment program. Mr. Speaker, the

people in my district and, I am sure, in the other fifty-one districts of this

Province, do not find it hilarious. They may find it sad, Mr. Speaker, that this

government can spend $7 million on Hydro privatization while people here are

hungry, Mr. Speaker; while the Premier can pay $600 a night for an hotel room in

China, when he expects a family of five in my district to live on it for a

month; while $1 million is spent on the ISP program (inaudible) children going

to school in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member -

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think on a point of privilege the -

Order, please!

- just for both members, I would rather hear what the hon.

member says and I was not quite sure because of noise from my left but I think

the hon. member might have gone beyond making a point of privilege to making a

political statement. I would like him to confine himself to his direct comments.

I would just like to hear what he has to say, unfortunately I cannot.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I try to follow the

rules of the House as much as I can, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation said

yesterday that every time I got up to present a petition I was lambasting the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. I say not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on May 3, 1993, I was elected by the people of

St. Mary's - The Capes with, I might add, an overwhelming majority, not on the

coat-tails of someone else. I have the right to stand up in this House and

present petitions on behalf of the people in my district, to air their concerns

and if the need be, to present petitions day after day. I give notice today, Mr.

Speaker, as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow there is nobody on the other

side of this House going to stop me as long as I operate within the rules of

this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I have stood up here today on a point of

privilege because I believe that my privileges as a member of the House of

Assembly for the District of St. Mary's - The Capes have been undermined by the

comments of the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation yesterday and I

await anxiously your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Anything further on the point of privilege?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Very briefly, the hon. gentleman's point of

privilege is just as insubstantial as his political arguments and I invite Your

Honour to deal with it in accordance with the rules of the House as I have no

doubt you will. I mean the hon. gentleman is at best whining and at worst simply

misleading himself because he is not misleading anybody else.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, to the point of privilege, Mr.

Speaker. This government, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation and

particularly the Government House Leader, have been trying to stymie the regular

process of petitions in this House since I came here. They put limits of two

petitions a day and occasionally a third one. Now the people in our districts

want to be heard in this House of Assembly and petitions are the only avenue

they have for a direct say in this House.

The Government House Leader has risen on many occasions in

this House when a second petition got presented without anyone supporting a

petition and has cut off petitions on an ongoing basis. I think it is only

proper, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the Province should have a right to be

heard here in the House. The Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, who was

presenting his petition, was just laughed and scorned at with political points

being made by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. I think that is

an affront to the people of the district as well as to the member, and his

privileges were breached in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I will look at what the member had to say in

Hansard because I could not hear it all, and I will make a ruling shortly.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I attempted to find out

how much Cabinet, and that includes all the existing Cabinet ministers as well

as those who used to be in Cabinet, how much they knew about the information

contained in the appendix to Cabinet paper 9191 related to the Trans City issue.

Now, the Minister of Finance said that the paper did not go

to Cabinet but that another paper did. He made reference to that yesterday in

his answer, and he made it a point to emphasize that Cabinet and the Premier

were fully aware of all the pluses and minuses about the Trans City deal that

were itemized in this first paper.

The Premier, however, contradicted the minister. He says he

never saw anything and he cannot remember being told anything, both November 30

in Hansard and yesterday, two quotes from Hansard by the Premier: I have no

recollection specifically of anything that is in it. In yesterday's Hansard he

said: I have never seen anything that is in that document before until

yesterday. Whether or not any individual statement that was in it was brought to

the attention of Cabinet at the time, I do not specifically recall, so the

Premier says he has drawn a blank.

Now, I want to ask the Minister of Finance, is he certain

that no pertinent information that he possessed was withheld from the Premier,

or the Cabinet, before the decision was made to award the contracts to Trans

City, or was the Cabinet decision based on incomplete information, as the

Premier suggests now?

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

MR. BAKER: I thank the hon. gentleman for his question. I

think this is probably the first time he has asked me a question directly so I

would like to thank him for that.

Mr. Speaker, as I have explained a number of times in the

House, several Cabinet discussions were held concerning this process. The

process was discussed in Cabinet in its entirety. We considered over a period of

time whether we would proceed with this process, but there were overwhelming

reasons why we decided ultimately to go ahead with the process, and I am talking

about originally the general call for tenders. These reasons had to do with

providing the best structural and financial deal for the Province and to get

work started in the Province and to get away from, in this instance, the very

time consuming and costly process that Government previously had in place. Mr.

Speaker, the issue was fully discussed in Cabinet and Cabinet was aware of the

pluses and minuses of going ahead with this process.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure whether I

should thank the minister for his answer because it didn't have much to do with

my question. The question is: Did you withhold any information? Did the Cabinet

have all of the information, or was there a decision based on incomplete

information? That is the question. Could he answer that?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: The decision, Mr. Speaker, was based on

complete information. It was based on a complete discussion of all of the pluses

and minuses of going with this particular proposal. If the hon. gentleman could

come up with a specific piece of information I could give him an answer. In

response to his question all I can say is that certainly all information, all

aspects of the situation, were discussed in Cabinet.

MR. SPEAKER: Further supplementary, the hon. the Leader

of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, that is rather interesting.

Because yesterday in this House the Premier told the House that he was not

aware, for example, of the point made in the legal opinion and in your first

Cabinet paper that the government would be acting outside of the sphere of the

public tendering act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The Premier said that yesterday in this House,

Mr. Speaker. Once again the minister is being caught. Let me move on, in any

event. We will pursue that one.

At the time the minister also had in his possession, which he

tabled yesterday, the legal opinion written by John Cummings, Assistant Deputy

Minister in the Department of Justice. This legal opinion, this letter, was

dated October 21, just days before the minister went to the Cabinet with the

committee's new paper that he talked about yesterday, presumably. The opinion

contains much of the same information that the minister had put in that first

appendix. His original paper was based in large measure on Mr. Cummings'

opinion. I want to ask the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, were the

Premier and the Cabinet fully informed of Mr. Cummings' entire opinion?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition

is doing what he usually does and I think everybody understands that. I would

quote from the particular legal opinion that he is referring to:

"In

summary, Cabinet does have the authority to award these

contracts to Trans City Holdings Limited under

Section 8 of the Act, even

thought it is not the lowest or preferred bidder. However, this will require the

tabling of the reasons for the contract awarded in the House of Assembly." Mr

Cummings in his legal opinion indicates that Cabinet has to consider whether

this is an appropriate circumstance for Cabinet to exercise that particular

authority that it has.

Cabinet considered that and decided that for a variety of

reasons, as I outlined yesterday to the hon. gentleman, that it was appropriate

to exercise that authority for the very good reasons that I explained yesterday.

"Finally, the issue of potential liability... if an unsuccessful bidder may

consider legal action" - Mr. Speaker, that is always the case in terms of

Cabinet decisions. Cabinet was aware of that. These are the issues as summarized

by the lawyer in this case, and Cabinet was fully aware of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister can understand

why I don't ask him questions directly. He won't give a direct answer. I asked

him were the Premier and the Cabinet fully informed of the entire opinion

submitted by Mr. Cummings. That is the question.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I will go back to the answer I

gave. The concerns were: Number one, could we do this under the public tender

act? The decision was yes. Number two, the other concern was, should Cabinet

exercise its authority? Cabinet decided to do that and decided at the same time

to recommend that if we were to go this process again - and, Mr. Speaker, we

should use this process again, in my opinion - if Cabinet were to go to this

process again there are some changes that would be made to deal with some of the

problems pointed out. Number three, Mr. Speaker, the issue of potential legal

suits, certainly, Cabinet was totally aware of that. These are the issues, Mr.

Speaker, in that legal opinion.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is pretty obvious that the minister is avoiding answering

the question for some reason. We think we know what the reason is. The question

is, did the Premier and the Cabinet know? Were they fully informed of every

point contained in Mr. Cummings' opinion? Yes or no?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the other issues in the opinion

deal with the process that was undergone, and certainly Cabinet was aware also,

in addition to the three points that I mentioned which were in the conclusion of

the legal opinion, the rest of it dealt with the

summary of what happened up to

that point. Certainly, Cabinet was totally aware of these issues as well. I do

not know what else the hon. gentleman is getting at.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition on a

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: What I am getting at is, was the Premier and

the Cabinet fully aware of everything contained in John Cummings' letter? That

is what I am getting at. Have I understood him correctly to say, yes? Was that

his answer, yes?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have answered the hon.

gentleman's question many times, today, yesterday, and on other occasions.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister of

Finance, I will try once more: Was the Premier fully aware of every item

contained in this document?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know the Premier has

always been a member of Cabinet and continues to be a member of Cabinet.

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

MR. SIMMS: I do not know what kind of games the minister,

the government, and the Premier want to play on this one. You can laugh all you

want but I can tell you that this is a very serious issue. Let me ask the

Minister of Finance one final question. He referred to this Cabinet paper, this

other Cabinet paper. Would he table the paper that he presented to Cabinet by

the committee he headed, the subsequent one?

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will look it up, and as I

always have done, and as I did with -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I cannot hear the hon. minister who is only three seats away

from me.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I will look up, get a copy, and

table that in the House, of exactly what my opinion was at that time and the

opinion of the committee, as I have done when the hon. member asked for other

information relating to this issue. I have always said, yes, I will get it and

table it. I have done so and I will, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the hon.

gentleman that this is a serious issue, and the real issue here is how do we

best provide for the best financial deal for the people of this Province in the

construction projects that we do.

Mr. Speaker, that has to be seriously looked at because the

ordinary process we started to use in 1989 was time consuming, resulted in

interminable delays, and resulted in explosions in cost, and we have to avoid

that. I think we did so in this instance and that is why we are prepared to have

a look at that process.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the more the minister speaks the

deeper he digs the hole, I say to him.

Now, let me continue asking the questions that I want to try

to get some answers to. By the way he has not tabled all the information. I

wanted to know what the purchase price was. I asked him that last week. What

construction costs were, I asked him that last week. He has not tabled that kind

of information.

Let me ask him this question. While he says his first paper,

that is the appendix to 9191, may not have been discussed at Cabinet, I would

like to ask him this, was it nevertheless distributed to all members of the

Cabinet?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, it was not.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: As far as you know.

MR. BAKER: I did not distribute them.

MR. SIMMS: Well, you would not anyway. You would not

distribute it. It would be distributed through the Executive Council I presume.

So do you know if it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Was it sent to the Executive Council? Can he

tell us that?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, it was not

distributed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, further supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Can the minister explain then, how did a copy

of this document end up in the hands and possession of the former Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation, if that is the case, if it was not

distributed to all members of Cabinet?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: I cannot answer that directly, Mr. Speaker,

because I do not know the process. I can suggest an explanation that -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Well I have tried to and I have not come up

with an answer to that. I would suggest that because the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation was so intimately involved in the process that

simply a copy of this memo, that was developed for consideration of the

committee, was automatically shipped up to Works, Services and Transportation, I

suppose, it may have even been developed by one of the officials up there. I do

not know and that is a mystery.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, there is a lot about this scandal

that is a mystery, I say to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: But I would like to ask him more precisely, it

is not good enough to stand in this House and say: I don't know, I can't find

out, it is a mystery. The minister has a responsibility to be accountable. I ask

him today, will he make and cause an investigation to be undertaken so that we

can get the answer to that question because it is very pertinent to the line of

questioning that I have had here this morning?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: I have tried to find out, Mr. Speaker, and

will continue to try to find out and as soon as I find out, I guarantee the hon.

Leader of the Opposition, I will let him know.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health.

Will the minister cause an investigation to be made whether or not

Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited benefitted from improper arrangements with any

person or persons at Miles Canada Incorporated that enabled it to underbid its

competitors in tenders for drugs and other pharmaceutical supplies to hospitals

and nursing homes in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the question that the hon.

member asked involves a legal situation, involves a police investigation that

involves Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited. The answer is no, the government will

not put in place an investigation of any kind that is a substitute for the

police investigation that is underway. Now the reasons for that have been

explained in full at least a dozen times in this House in the last ten days or

week or so, however long this matter has been an issue, and clearly the

government will not, unless and until that police investigation is finished and

there is justification at that time to explore further, then the government will

not hesitate to put in place whatever investigation is necessary to make a full

determination of all outstanding issues.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The tenor of my

questions have nothing to do with what the police are investigating that

originated in Ontario.

I ask the minister, would he cause an investigation to be

made into the inventory of drugs and pharmaceutical supplies used by hospitals

and nursing homes in this Province to determine if there is a disproportionate

number of drugs and pharmaceutical supplies manufactured or supplied by Miles

Canada Incorporated?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, those are the things and

amongst things that are being the subject of this police investigation. Now if

that is warranted, if Miles Canada has somehow gotten an undue foothold in the

drug business in this Province, I would like to know too. When the police

investigation is completed, if it does not result in full and total disclosure

of information sufficient to satisfy all reasonable outstanding questions, a

full investigation will be held but we will not put in place any kind of an

investigation dealing with Miles Pharmaceuticals or whatever they are, until

this police investigation is finished. We do not want to jeopardize the quality

of the police investigation or the ability to follow up afterwards.

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

for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The subject of my questioning has nothing to do with the

intent and what is happening with the police investigation of Ontario and the

Premier knows full well. I will ask him a question now that is entirely

unrelated. Would the minister inquire to determine if hospitals order drugs and

pharmaceutical supplies by specific brand names? And will he determine whether

the practice of ordering by specific brand names favours brands distributed by

Pharmaceutical Supplies of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have no quarrel with making

enquiries to determine whether hospitals generally order drugs by brand names. I

am quite prepared to have that question asked, and if there is any suspicion or

any basis other than the mere fact that the member throws out the question for

suggesting it, then I would certainly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, if you would make the facts

available to me, I would be very pleased to cause whatever inquiry is justified

on the basis of those facts to be made, but I will not direct an inquiry

specifically at anything that Pharmaceutical Supplies alone does. I will direct

a general inquiry that will apply to all drug supplies if the member produces,

publicly or privately, one iota of evidence that would justify it other than the

mere statement in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

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

the Premier, who said he always believed the Member for St. John's South, and

now the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, lived in Tors Cove and went

there every night. Didn't the Premier know that at the time the member was first

elected to represent St. John's South as a member of the Wells team in May,

1989, the member, having been born and raised in St. John's, lived with his

family at Perlin Street in St. John's. Didn't the Premier know that three months

after the member was elected, in August, 1989, the member sold his Perlin Street

St. John's house, as shown in this deed registered in the Registry of Deeds, and

began drawing a $30,000 allowance from the taxpayers of the Province for

commuting to Tors Cove?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have to tell the House, Mr. Speaker,

that I really didn't enquire as to where any candidate lived at the time they

became a candidate. I didn't think that was a particularly relevant issue. I

honestly have never known whether the Member for St. John's South lived anywhere

else. All I have ever known or associated him with is Tors Cove. When he moved

there, when he didn't, or when he had an apartment somewhere else, I don't know.

Whether it was before or after he was elected, I don't know.

For example, the Member for Mount Pearl now lives in

Lewisporte, I believe. He was elected as the Member for Mount Pearl, living in

Mount Pearl -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, and he now lives in Lewisporte. What

does that have to do with anything?

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

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, most townees would say there is no

bigger townee than the Member for St. John's South, but if the Premier persists

in claiming to believe that the Member for St. John's South has his principal

residence in Tors Cove and is entitled to the $30,000 plus he is drawing from

the provincial Treasury for commuting, what is the Premier going to do about the

fact that the minister has broken federal and provincial laws by having a St.

John's address on his driver's licence, by being registered on the St. John's

East federal voters list and, most damning of all, by voting in last year's

federal election as a resident of St. John's East in the federal riding of St.

John's East?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't accept the member's

judgement. I have seldom had reason to accept the member's judgement, but if she

believes that the Member for St. John's South has broken any law, she, as a

former Attorney General, surely knows what she must do. She has a responsibility

to go to the police and say: I do solemnly swear that I believe that the Member

for St. John's South has breached such-and-such

an act.

Please go and do it, and let whatever investigation takes

place take place. Don't stand in this House and sit in judgement on everybody

else and proclaim this judgement in this way, and that people should act in

accordance with the member's judgement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, the Premier is the Premier and has a

responsibility to remove from his Cabinet somebody as unworthy as the Member for

St. John's South.

Now, the Member for St. John's South was registered on the

federal voters list for St. John's East. The member is an active politician who

campaigned for St. John's East Liberal candidate Bonnie Hickey in last year's

federal election. Does the Premier seriously believe for one minute that the

Member for St. John's South did not vote in St. John's East in last year's

federal election, and what is he going to do about it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will take full responsibility for the

quality, ethics and morality of every single member who is in my Cabinet. That

is my responsibility and I will answer to the people of this Province for that.

But I will not hack at people simply because the Member for Humber East wants to

politically persecute everybody who doesn't share her political views.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

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

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. This past spring in this hon.

House you as minister stated that you needed a couple of weeks to straighten out

the situation created by the government with respect to fire fighting on the

northeast Avalon. Can the minister inform this House of the status of the

regional fire fighting committee six months later?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Within minutes, Mr. Speaker, I will rise in

this House to give notice of

an act or an amendment to

an act that will

hopefully take care of that problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

John's East Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will say to that it is about time, after

two years' waiting, Mr. Speaker. The City of St. John's has incurred a current

account deficit for fire fighting of $2.7 million because this government

refused to listen to logic before it created the St. John's regional fire

fighting committee. You as minister have admitted government's mistake by

allowing the regional fire fighting board to dismantle itself. Therefore will

government accept its responsibility and agree that a transition grant is

warranted?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, very briefly. There was a mistake

made. I'm not going to say that we as a government made it or the mistake could

be placed on the City of St. John's or any of those wonderful rural

municipalities that surround the City of St. John's.

Let me say to the hon. member that I agree, I did say last

year that it was one thing that I wanted to straighten out. The hon. member

knows after talking to me, and the hon. Member for Mount Pearl and my critic,

every one of them who have had any interest in the northeast Avalon, have spoken

to me on numerous occasions. I've asked for advice from the hon. member. I've

asked for advice from just about anyone who was involved with it to try to solve

that particular problem. Hopefully after today and the next few minutes we may

be able to direct ourselves and all our wonderful friends in Mount Pearl and in

Portugal Cove towards some kind of a solution to this problem. Hopefully! I will

never get up in the House and say I've got a deal until the `i's are dotted and

the `t's are crossed.

With your help, Mr. Speaker, and with the hon. member's help,

and with the hon. Member for Mount Pearl and all the others, I think if we all

come together with the communities then we can get a deal on the northeast

Avalon fire fighting service.

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

St. John's East Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it. The

one who created the mess on the northeast Avalon with respect to fire fighting

is that government on that side of the House.

The minister has been quoted as saying: If an agreement

cannot be reached to end the dispute, government will legislate a solution.

Which he just said he would. What is the minister's deadline? Since the minister

knows these towns cannot bear the $2.7 million burden by themselves how will he

punish them when he uses the Legislature to impose an unfair bill upon them?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, even though the hon. member can

get a bit nasty at times I'm not going to allow that to affect my judgement.

Because he is an ex-mayor I will go back next week and ask the hon. member again

to give me advice. Because I think with all that's said that he has to say, I

suppose, about us as a government then, I am not that type of person. I enjoy

and appreciate the hon. member's comments because he was an ex-mayor. I will say

that in all sincerity to you.

I will not stand in this House today and legislate a

settlement to the northeast Avalon fire fighting problem. I will not legislate

it. By this motion that I am going to introduce later on I will set the wheels

in motion whereby the communities on the northeast Avalon can finally come

together and come up with a solution to this problem themselves with my help,

and hopefully with your help.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Premier in his capacity as the Minister of Justice now on an issue that I

believe he would have been briefed on by the Director of Civil Law in the

department.

Let me first of all ask him a question: If an individual is

taken before the court on an issue and is given an absolute discharge, what

exactly does that mean? Does that person not have any record? Is the slate

clean, or is there a mark that will be held against that individual further down

the road? Can the Premier first answer that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: If the member accepts, for the moment,

that what I am giving him is just a recollection off the top of my head and

subject to my going back and confirming the detail, my recollection is that the

provisions of the Criminal Code relating to absolute discharge enables a court

to look at an individual's circumstance and say a person who has been charged

with a criminal offence, while the technical requirements of the offence have

been established - that is, the act was done and there was really an intent, if

the intent is required to do the act and so on - the circumstances are such that

it would really be inappropriate to find the person guilty of that offence,

impose a punishment, and all of the other consequences that would flow,

including the maintenance in his record forever of a criminal record for having

been convicted. Courts have been given that leeway because circumstances exist

and, generally speaking, I believe courts have performed very well under that.

Now, my recollection is that the record of the absolute

discharge is there, but there is no record of conviction. There is no criminal

record in the sense that the individual has been convicted of the crime, but the

record of having been charged and the absolute discharge remains. Now, I don't

know if there is any particular protocol or procedure in place for eliminating

it, but I will check the detail. I believe there may be something at the federal

level. I don't know what there is at the provincial level. I don't believe there

is one in place at the provincial level, so technically the record of the charge

having been laid and the absolute discharge given is still there. That record is

there, but there is no record of criminal conviction because there has been an

absolute discharge.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Very quickly - I know we are getting short

on time - let me ask the Premier this. I have a particular situation with an

individual who I will not name, for obvious reasons, a young man who committed a

misdemeanour, basically. A bunch of young people went to George Street and as he

came out he whopped on a car and landed in the arms of two plain clothes

policemen, and he was charged with mischief, I think, public mischief and damage

to the vehicle, even though there was no damage to the vehicle. He was taken to

court and given an absolute discharge. In that young gentleman's view he was

free and clean; it was over and done. The judge obviously said, this is not a

serious offence; I won't put a mark on his record.

He has asked the police for a certificate of conduct, because

this young man wants to join the police force. This is the type of young man

that he is, and has always wanted to join the police force. On one Friday night

he made a minor mistake.

The real point is, I say to the Premier, the police have

said: I would give you a letter of conduct if you were applying for anything

except a job with the police force. The question is: Is an absolute discharge an

absolute discharge, or is it an absolute discharge provided you don't want to

join the police force? Do the police have that kind of flexibility?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will get the details and provide the

answer to the member either privately, because it involves a private individual,

or publicly in this House, whichever the member prefers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Fine, okay, I will do it, but just let me

refer to the member's question again to demonstrate the good sense of such a

provision.

If I were the car owner I might be a little disturbed, but

what young person has not, some time during their lifetime, done something at

least as bad as that, and why should they be saddled with a criminal record

forever because of it? So the good sense of the absolute discharge provision of

the Criminal Cove is very clear. The statute is a federal statute. All of the

provisions are federal, but the Province processes all the criminal procedures.

Let me check the detail and I will get back to the hon.

member privately, and if he is not satisfied with the private position, raise it

again publicly.

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

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

House of Assembly, twenty students and their instructors, Cathy Bailey, Patricia

Buist and Dorothy Williams who are completing a telemarketing training program

at the ERCO premises at Long Harbour, Placentia Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

Notices of Motion

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Here it comes, Mr. Speaker, and members of St.

John's East hang on to your chairs.

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

to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act."

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: 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." (Bill No.2).

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

the following bills entitled:

"An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pension Act", also

"An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991", and

"An Act To Amend The Newfoundland and Labrador Computer

Services Limited Amendment Act."

Petitions

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me pleasure to rise here today on a petition signed

by 1,270 people mostly from the District of Placentia and the petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland

in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of

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

prayer: We the undersigned do hereby ask the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation to undertake the upgrading and paving of approximately twenty-one

kilometres of road on Route 91 from southeast Placentia to the intersection of

North Harbour Road, Route 92 and to upgrade and pave approximately seven

kilometres of road on Route 100 - 10 from the Argentia Access Road to the

intersection of the southeast road, Route 91. We ask the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation to address this matter as in duty bound your

petitioners will ever pray; 1,270 people mostly from the District of Placentia.

Now as we all know, Placentia, in recorded history, has had

continuous settlement since 1662, but people were living there long before that.

Now this area, the southeast road to Colinet area, North Harbour, prior to that

being used, people were coming to Argentia, Placentia area by ship, then by

train but other people, through the years, were going through the country. They

walked or they went by horse.

The area we are talking about, the southeast road, part of it

was used by D'Iberville, and is known as the French Trail because they kept

inland on the side of the hills on their way to burn Ferryland and on their way

to burn St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: Burn Ferryland?

MR. CAREEN: Oh yes. D'Iberville was in a job creation

project, much better than what this Province is at, but anyway, it has very

historical connections.

Today marks the anniversary of 1927 when, Mr. Henry Ford,

unveiled a model T, an assembly act that allowed ordinary people to be able to

purchase vehicles. Well that trail, the southeast road to St. Mary's, Colinet

area, was upgraded in 1926, 1927, for some vehicles, but it wasn't really done

and upgraded until the Americans came to Argentia in the 40s. They upgraded and

made a road of it, they also put in the access up behind Dunville because of

winter situations across the gut in Placentia. They maintained those roads, they

upgraded them, did them and maintained them until in the early 50s. These roads

now are used by people who come back and forth, and who use the hospital

facilities in Placentia. The police use it on their patrols - and getting back

to the hospital issue, we all know that a second, a minute, is oftentimes the

difference between someone living and dying. It is very, very important for that

road to be upgraded and paved. Also, with regard to tourism, it creates another

shorter loop within the region of the Avalon. When we talk about tourism we

don't always mean people coming from outside the Province, because there are

many people from within the Province who travel on a Sunday afternoon, or

whatever. They move, and if they see a shorter trail, a shorter route paved,

that's the one they will take if they don't have the time to go the other route

across the Avalon.

The Dunville access is very important to some people in our

area as well because the Anglican graveyard is located in that area, and there

are a number of people who find it very, very difficult at different times of

the year, trying to get to the general protestant graveyard.

MR. EFFORD: What would that have to do with paving the

road?

MR. CAREEN: Because it is not paved now, the whole works

of it is not paved.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)

MR. CAREEN: Well, their people have to get them there.

They are not going to put them on a roller coaster to get them up there, I say

to the minister. If you don't care about the living, Sir, have a bit of respect

for the dead.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: This is a very, very old road, the Dunville

access, behind Dunville.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support the efforts, not of the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation, but indeed the efforts of the Member for

Placentia, as he brings forward a concern that not only relates to his district,

Mr. Speaker, but indeed, relates to people in my district of St. Mary's - The

Capes.

I say that because this road that the hon. the Member for

Placentia is talking about is a connecting road with a fair portion of my

district, especially the communities of North Harbour, Colinet, Mount Carmel,

and the St. Catherine's area, indeed the whole area. I am sure that the

minister, understanding now that it is a concern for both myself and the Member

for Placentia will see to it that this road receives some work.

Mr. Speaker, this is a major link for the people in the

communities I just mentioned with regard to shopping, banking, police service,

and indeed, the Placentia Hospital, that many people in the district use on a

daily basis. Any day at all, you can drive over this road and meet people from

my district on their way back and forth to Placentia, because it is one of the

major centres in our area.

It is a road that has been used, as the member said, since

1920, a road almost seventy-five years old, and that has received very little in

the amount of dollars with regard to upgrading, etc., from this Province. The

Americans built the road back in 1942 and since then it has been mostly

maintained by the government. It is a road that is in very good condition if we

take into consideration that gravel roads can, in some parts of the Province, be

in good condition.

It is a road that is used by hundreds of people and it is a

major link for people in Placentia travelling to St. John's, and indeed for the

people in my district who travel out to Placentia on a daily basis, as I touched

on, but one of the most important aspects of this road, I would say, is in

relation to the tourism development of the whole area.

Over the past number of years we have been trying in our area

to develop the tourism industry to a point where people can find jobs,

especially for people who have been put out of their jobs due to the crisis in

our fishery. These people see this road as a link road, we should say, in

relation to tourism development. The Cataracts Park is on this road. Many

people, during the summertime, visit the cataracts, and I'm sure the numbers

would increase significantly if this road were upgraded and paved. I'm sure the

minister would like to do what he can for tourism in our area. Indeed, when our

area benefits, the whole Province benefits. Having Argentia as one of the major

entrances to our Province, from which people travel on to the city of St. John's

and throughout, I think it would be to the benefit of all people to have this

road upgraded and paved.

For a number of years before the road between North Harbour

and Branch was used, many people down in the Cape Shore area used this road as a

means of making their way to St. John's - especially with the bridge in

Placentia; until the bridge was built in Placentia many people in our area used

the road for a number of years going back and forth to St. John's. I believe it

is long overdue that something should be done with this road.

I learned yesterday that the Executive Council of

Newfoundland has given permission for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation to award tenders for highway projects. He has a total of $62

million that he can expend, if I follow this properly, on highway roads, and

indeed under the provincial roads program, under the strategic highway

improvement, regional trunk road agreement and all this. I say, Mr. Speaker,

that out of this $62 million -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. MANNING: I have a Minute of the meeting of the

Committee of the Executive Council, Mr. Speaker.

MR. EFFORD: Where did you get that?

MR. MANNING: It fell from the sky, Mr. Speaker. I don't

know where it came from. I have it. I'm just saying that the minister has $62

million to spend on roads in this Province over the next year into the fiscal

year of 1996-1997. I say, out of that $62 million that the minister has at his

disposal to spend on roads in this Province I think he should see fit to do

something with the road between Colinet and Placentia - Southeast Placentia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MANNING: I hope the minister will, in his wisdom,

find that this road will be of benefit, only to our area, but, indeed, a benefit

to the whole Province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the hon. member to table that Minute of the meeting of

the Executive Council that he was just reading from. I would like to have that

tabled - you have to table it, you read from it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: But he has to table that document.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: He read from it, yes.

Mr. Speaker, with reference to the petition presented by my

hon. colleague, the Member for Placentia, do I understand correctly that the two

hon. gentlemen are asking me now to pre-commit funds for next year to pave the

roads in their districts? If I understand that correctly, to the question: will

we pre-commit any funds or give the members an answer to doing any work in the

districts in 1995? the answer is absolutely not.

First of all, the budgetary decision won't come down on the

provincial road system until next March or April. If I get any monies to put

into the provincial roads capital works program next year - that will depend on

the budgetary decision which will be coming up several months down the road - we

have in excess of 9,000 kilometres of road in this Province. For the small

amount of money that we get to do the provincial capital works program each and

every year I have to have prioritized what is the most needed to be done. I will

be doing that over the next several months, and prior to the Budget coming down,

have everything in place. When the Budget does come down and I do get the money

I will be able to proceed with the provincial capital works program next year,

but certainly not at this time.

I want to make reference to the two hon. members who heaped

so much abuse on the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation yesterday in

this House of Assembly. I ask, are they now going to stand up and ask me to give

them monies for next year to pave the roads? I question the two members, one day

abusing and the next day asking for something. The pre-commitment of funds -

AN HON. MEMBER: What were you saying?

MR. EFFORD: Absolutely not. We will not pre-commit any

funds at this time of year.

Mr. Speaker, also, the question, do I have any respect -

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Member for

Placentia presented, and I supported, a petition on behalf of the people in our

district. I hope, in all sincerity, that the minister takes the concerns of the

people seriously and that he is not throwing threats across the House. Throwing

threats and trying to use intimidation will not work with the people on this

side of the House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I am not quite sure the member has a point

of order. I will let the minister continue.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify one other point,

hon. members also said that I didn't have any respect for the dead and I wanted

to make sure that they understand what I said clearly, I do have respect for the

dead and I have proven that because I have had a lot of respect for the

Opposition for the last couple of years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

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

I am pleased to rise today to present a petition from some

198 constituents of mine in the Community of Mary's Harbour. The petition reads:

`WHEREAS the Mary's Harbour community bridge is an important

transportation link between Mary's Harbour and Lodge Bay and;

WHEREAS the Mary's Harbour community bridge is travelled over

by vehicles and pedestrians on a regular basis and;

WHEREAS approximately 150 students have to cross this bridge

every day to attend school and;

WHEREAS the community bridge is in definite need of repairs

or replacement;

WHEREFORE the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and

call upon the House of Assembly and the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, John Efford, to understand our concerns and need to have a new

bridge constructed or substantial repairs in the Community of Mary's Harbour.'

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support the prayer of this

petition. I would like to point out, however, that it doesn't fall under the

jurisdiction of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, but rather,

under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, this bridge certainly is essential to the

workings of the Community of Mary's Harbour. Apart from the students who travel

over it, Mr. Speaker, all of the workers who work in the Mary's Harbour crab

plant also use it. It is certainly, at this point in time, in a state of

disrepair and there definitely needs to be some funding provided to see that it

is kept in a condition that is safe and obviously able to accommodate all the

transportation needs of the people in those two communities.

I would like to ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs to take this under advisement and hopefully, in the coming budget, we

will see some allocation for this type of emergency repair, if at all possible.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to tell hon. members that the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs did get to see this particular bridge this past

summer. I am sure he is well aware of where it is, but obviously, this petition

does tell us again that there is a real need for repairs and I am sure he will

give it every consideration.

So I present this petition, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. House

and I would ask that government address it at their earliest possible

convenience. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely

right. In fact, I did see the bridge on my visit to the Southern Labrador Coast

last summer and I will be honest and say that at the time I was a little

concerned about the bridge. The council in the Mary's Harbour area is a very

good council. It is the type of council that takes and addresses, I suppose, all

the community concerns, and this has been a concern for them for some years.

They did, last year, do some work on it themselves. I am not sure if I assisted

them on some maintenance last year or not. I believe I probably did, but I don't

want to leave that impression if I didn't.

Mr. Speaker, Mary's Harbour, I think, needs to put together

an application either on our infrastructure program for next year, or under

capital funding of some kind, and if they would get that request in to me I am

certainly sure that we, as a government, will address those problems.

I have no doubt in my mind that the information the hon.

member from that area is providing, that it is an old wooden type bridge with a

metal structure in under, I believe, and it needs some repair and there is a

problem with that particular bridge, so I can only say to the community of

Mary's Harbour, as well as the member, that yes, I will certainly look at

providing funding for that under capital works for next year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before we begin today's debate

I wonder if I may have the consent of the House to drop from the Order Paper

five orders at second reading with which we will not be proceeding. Now, I have

spoken with my friend -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Bill 1 - we are not proceeding with them. I

am not proposing to drop it, but we will not be proceeding. That has been dealt

with, but these are less important than Bill 1, I say to my friend from Grand

Falls.

Order 12, "An Act To Amend The Regional Service Boards Act"

(Bill No. 6); Order 13, "An Act To Amend The Fisheries Loan Act" (Bill No. 3);

Order 14, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act", (Bill No. 4) - that,

in fact, was caught up in a subsequent Workers' Compensation Act with which the

House dealt last spring; Order 16, "An Act To Amend The Social Workers

Association Act" (Bill No. 26); and Order 24, "An Act To Amend The Pippy Park

Commission Act" (Bill No. 43) - that act will be incorporated in the bill of

which notice was given earlier today.

So I would ask Your Honour if I may have leave of the House

to have those five bills withdrawn and matters dropped from the Order Paper. It

will make the Order Paper that much shorter, I say.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded by the hon.

Government House Leader that leave be given to drop Orders 12, 13, 14, 16 and 24

from the Order Paper.

Motion carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, yesterday my friend from St.

George's, the Minister of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, five.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twelve, thirteen, fourteen, sixteen -

MR. SPEAKER: And twenty-four.

MR. ROBERTS: Twenty-four; that is five.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, then, I am sorry. My note is not

complete. Would the House agree to withdraw number 26 as well?

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Order 26, "An

Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act (No. 2)" (Bill No. 48), be dropped from the

Order Paper.

Motion carried.

MR. ROBERTS: I must say, we are really moving ahead here

today, Mr. Speaker. We will clean the Order Paper one way or the other.

Your Honour, I was going to say that my friend, the Minister

of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture will bring to a close the debate on the

Aquaculture Act amendment. I would then ask if Your Honour would call Order 18,

which is the Fish Inspection Act. I think we are either changing a comma or

adding a word. It is of some importance, but it is not a major piece of work. We

will then go on to Order 21, which is Bill No. 40. My friend from Carbonear, the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, will deal with that. Then, when I

find my friend, the Minister of Education, whose seat-belt seems to have been

released for a bit, if we get done, we will deal with Orders 19 and 20, which

are standing in his name.

Your Honour, first - the Clerk has tugged my gown - could we

do the first readings of Motions 3 and 4?

Motion, the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An

Act To Amend The Leaseholds In St. John's Act," carried. (Bill No. 52).

On motion, Bill No. 52 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act

To Amend The Financial Administration Act," carried. (Bill No. 53)

On motion, Bill No. 53 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 15, I believe, Order 15, the hon.

the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make

some further comments on this particular bill in light of the debate yesterday.

Before doing so I should like to mention to this hon. House the importance of

aquaculture in the future fisheries industry of this Province.

Some have already alluded to the fact that a province like

New Brunswick has a very large aquaculture industry, an industry that will

contribute this year to that provincial economy somewhere between $150 million

and $175 million. Yet the potential for aquaculture in New Brunswick versus what

is available in Newfoundland is not even a drop in the bucket, one might say. In

the area of Bay d'Espoir alone in this Province we have an area where there is

some ten to twelve times the opportunity for aquaculture, as far as physical

space is concerned, compared to the total of New Brunswick. If one were to

travel from Bay d'Espoir to Burgeo you would find around ten or twelve more

sites comparable to Bay d'Espoir, all of which are potential sites for

aquaculture development in the future. As we go down the road in developing this

industry this particular act is going to be very important in that development.

My friend the hon. the Member for Ferryland raised an issue

yesterday with regard to

section 4. He had interpreted that change in the

section as meaning that the minister would be able to issue an aquaculture

licence without even a licence being applied for. In actual fact, the change in

that particular

section basically is associated with amending or varying an

already existing licence. It gives the minister the authority to amend or vary

an already existing licence without having to have the licence holder request

that variation or amendment.

The reason for that - a good example is a need for a change

sometimes in a particular licence with regard to shorelines. Recently a request

was made that shorelines be well marked with red flags, especially during the

wintertime when snow-mobilers are travelling along the shoreline. They would

need to know where shorelines are located. The minister could then take the

authority that he has to amend the licence in that particular situation without

having the request come from the licence holder.

Another issue that was raised yesterday was the change in

section 4 of the wording the minister "may" issue a licence versus the minister

"shall" issue a licence. That is basically very much consistent as to what we do

now in the processing sector with regard to processing plants. The department

must have the control over the development of this industry in the future to

make sure that it is line with good resource development and areas of

suitability.

section 6 of the bill there was some question raised

yesterday as to why the minister would wish to appoint people as inspectors

other than those who are associated with the department and the reason for that

change is because of our historic relationship with the Department of Fisheries

and Oceans and their inspectors. Also with our move in this Province towards,

what we call, swat teams where officials from other departments are given the

opportunity and the authority to make arrests and to report activities that are

not quite proper without having to contact a Department of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture inspector himself. This whole move is to improve of course, the

efficiency, the totality of enforcement and surveillance issues in the

aquaculture field.

There was another question raised as to - in

Section 6.9 -

why the minister may direct a person to take a measure referred to in other

areas to stop a particular activity or to require a person if he was operating

without a license to immediately apply for a license. Well the reason for the

change where we are now substituting, instead of the minister, that he or she,

is again to improve the efficiency of the administration of the act where the

inspector himself would be able to make that decision without going through the

minister.

The last point that I am going to make, Mr. Speaker, refers

to why we have gone to a minimum fine of $5,000 in the case of a second or

subsequent offense as far as that is concerned. The reason for this change is

meant to be a significant deterrent with regard to second and subsequent

offenses. The question was raised yesterday, `maybe it was put in there just as

a means of a money maker for government?' That is not the case, it is basically

put in there to be a very severe and significant deterrent to continued breaking

of the law as far as the bill is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, on these few comments I move second reading of

this bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act,"

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill No. 15)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Would you be good enough, please to call

Order 18, which is Bill No. 33, which also stands in the name of my friend from

St. George's.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish

Inspection Act". (Bill No. 33)

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, this particular bill is to allow

the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to enact regulations respecting the retention

of fish in the Province.

The processing sector of the fishing industry falls of

course, within the legislative jurisdiction of the Province. The Province,

through the Fish Inspection Act has enacted legislation to control the handling,

processing, storage, grading, transportation, and marketing of fish and all fish

products within the Province.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)

DR. HULAN: I was just advised by my hon. friend for the

District of Port de Grave to take my hands out of my pocket because -

At the present time the purpose of regulating the marketing

of fish is of course under the control of the regulation and it states that it

is in relation to the handling, processing, storage, grading, packaging, and

marketing and inspection of fish, but as our inspectors often times have to make

a detention of fish and not a complete takeover of the fish shipment as you

would do in a seizure. When a seizure is made the department is held responsible

and it has to take possession, it has to store the fish, and the department

would then have to incur the storage costs, and often times this is not

necessary. For instance, sometimes fish has to be detained because of a simple

labelling issue and really there should be no reason to cause a seizure of the

load of fish. The changes in the regulation is to provide inspectors with the

possibility of detaining the fish without a complete seizure of the product. In

Paragraph 4 (2) it is amended by striking out the words, inspection, and

substituting a comma and the words, inspecting and detaining.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a few very brief comments because all the bill is

doing is just adding in, detained, in addition to all the other specific

responsibilities that it has under the specific act.

I guess it is just giving a little broader scope and little

more powers to this specific bill. Normally, as the bill is printed there, the

only change I see, and I am sure that is quite clear here, as it currently

states the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, really the Cabinet, may make

regulations regarding the handling, the processing, and storing, grading and

packaging, and all those other things that may be done within the jurisdiction

of the act, whether it is transporting, marketing, etc., or inspecting, and they

are now adding in, to detain. I guess to give more extensive powers to be able

to hold a specific product that does not meet the specifications of the

department. It is really empowering the department to detain rather than just

inspect. I guess they had limited scope before, and if they cannot detain it,

then it may not be able to probably carry out its full mandate that they wish to

carry out under this specific act. I would assume that is all it is stating

here.

Mr. Speaker, those are all the comments I have. I think it is

very brief, only a one word change.

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: I have just one very brief comment. The need

for this change also relates to the fact that our whole system is moving to more

extensive labelling. When getting into nutritional labelling sometimes a simple

problem with the labelling would require the product to be held for, as my hon.

friend for Ferryland has said, a more detailed inspection, therefore it would be

needed to detain the product rather than seize the product, therefore makes the

legislation more streamlined and does indeed give our inspectors the wherewithal

to carry out their duties properly.

I, on this point then, Mr. Speaker, move second reading of

this bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act,"

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill No. 33)

MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we go on now to do Bill

40, which is Order No. 21, amendments to the Corner Brook and the Mount Pearl

City Acts, and then we will do Orders 19 and 20 and if we get on with that, we

will give my friend from St. George's, a third strike today, by calling the

Livestock Insurance Act which is Order No. 27.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The City

of Corner Brook Act And The City Of Mount Pearl Act". (Bill No. 40)

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Last year, Mr. Speaker, in the fall, we

introduced

an act to the House that had to do with the St. John's Act which

basically allowed the City of St. John's under the City of St. John's Act, to

set the residential properties and commercial business properties mil rate

differently.

Prior to last year, the basic mil rate for properties,

residential and commercial, were the same and to be quite honest, Mr. Speaker, I

felt and the three mayors, of Mount Pearl, Corner Brook and St. John's felt

that, that was tying their hands and there were times that they could offer

special consideration to new businesses coming into the community and the

opposite of that they could probably assess higher mil rates on property from

businesses, and it was really just tying the hands of those three particular

councils, so I am back today, Mr. Speaker, requesting the same thing for the

City of Corner Brook and the City of Mount Pearl.

Now, I will say to you that the hon. Member for

Waterford-Kenmount, last year, spoke to me on this particular question on a

number of occasions as well as the Mayor of Mount Pearl, and at that particular

point in time, we were trying, if my hon. friend remembers, to get it in the

House last fall and we just couldn't do it, we ran out of time and couldn't do

it so I am pleased this morning to be able to stand and say that this particular

bill will take care of the anomalies in Mount Pearl and Corner Brook and it is

basically to give those two communities the right to set the mil rate for both

property and/or business and commercial properties in both those cities, and

that is basically all I need to say on it, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise and support the piece of legislation

that has been introduced, Bill 40, to of course, amend the City of Mount Pearl

Act and the Corner Brook Act and as the minister has already said, permits a

variance in the mil rates charged on property between the commercial and the

residential properties.

As the minister knows of course, property and business taxes

for the municipalities of Corner Brook and St. John's and all municipalities are

based on the assessed value of residential and commercial properties, and the

assessed value is of course, at or near the market value at the time when the

assessment is done. The values that we have in the City of Mount Pearl - I am

more familiar with the City of Mount Pearl and the minister knows that the

assessment was done in 1985 and that these values held until 1993 when there was

another re-assessment done.

In 1993, the City of Mount Pearl found herself in a difficult

situation. They had a very out-dated assessment roll and in that particular year

there was an agreement with the ministry whereby they would increase by 15 per

cent all of the assessed values both residential and commercial. The effect of

that of course, was to have an impact as the mil rate was not lowered,

automatically there would have been a 15 per cent increase in taxes. The city

council at the time decided they would lower the property tax rate from 9.85

mils down to 9 mils for both residential and commercial properties. The net

effect in 1993 in Mount Pearl was to have a tax increase of about 5 per cent to

5.5 per cent on both residential properties and commercial properties.

In that same year the municipality as well was working with

the Ministry to have a reassessment done. Of course that reassessment was

completed in 1993 and it showed that there was a substantial change in the

values of residential property as opposed to the values of commercial property.

For example, the overall impact of the cod moratorium and the economic recession

showed that commercial properties in Mount Pearl had decreased. The 1993

assessment showed that there was a 2.3 per cent change in the total commercial

assessed values. On the other hand, there was a 12.9 per cent increase in the

residential values.

What that meant was that if you applied the same property tax

rate that one part of your tax base, the residential component, would have a

disproportionate increase in their tax, as opposed to the commercial rates. It

would have resulted in a substantial shift of the tax burden from the commercial

base to the residential base. This varied mil rate permits the cities of Mount

Pearl and Corner Brook to be able to go and charge different rates on property

tax to residential properties and to commercial properties. It allows for

fairness in the taxation approach. The City of Mount Pearl has, as the minister

has said, approached the minister on several occasions relative to this. It will

permit the 1995 budget to be more equitable, and it will permit the City of

Mount Pearl to be able to share the tax burden in a more balanced way between

residential and commercial tax payers.

Mr. Speaker, that is all I would have to say on that. It is a

good piece of legislation welcomed by the cities of Mount Pearl and Corner

Brook. We thank the minister for assuring both municipalities that it would get

on the order paper in this session because it now can be implemented in the next

taxation year. Thank you very much.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise very briefly

just to address this piece of legislation. My friend for Waterford - Kenmount

has outlined in some specifics the kind of implications that this particular

amendment to the act can have for the various cities. I won't need to go into

those types of details, but to simply emphasize the importance from a general

point of view here.

We are talking about the three cities in the Province. Once

again it underlines the importance of giving the cities, which have good

professional staff, which have a very mature council and a very mature system of

local government, greater responsibility and control over the affairs of the

cities. They are the cities as compared to towns. There are really three stages

in this Province. We have larger towns, we have smaller towns, and we have

cities. We have some of the larger towns that are also very sophisticated. We

have some larger towns that are an absolute total disaster and need to be

totally controlled by the minister so that there are some checks and balances

put in place.

The three cities by the very nature of their maturity as

municipalities, by the very nature of the support staff that are available, the

professional staff, the advisors, technical people who are available to them,

should in fact be given greater freedom in handling the affairs of their

community and their municipality. They should be I guess responsible less and

less to the minister. Obviously the minister ultimately is responsible for all

municipalities, but the three cities I think certainly have proven and earned a

larger measure of freedom to handle their own affairs.

This is a step in the right direction, M. Speaker, so we have

no problem at all in supporting this particular bill.

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

Provincial Affairs, if he speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. REID: Basically, just to clue up, Mr. Speaker. There

is certainly no controversy in this particular piece of legislation and I thank

my two hon. friends from across the way from Waterford - Kenmount and Mount

Pearl for supporting the bill and that is it. Thank you very much. I now move

second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook

Act And The City Of Mount Pearl Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a

Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 40)

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, the next two orders we will

deal with are Orders 19 and 20, in that order and both stand in the name of my

friend the Minister of Education and Training.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Teachers' Association Act". (Bill No. 37)

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this is simply a little bit of

housekeeping. The Newfoundland Teachers' Association have passed a motion that

they want their association name changed from NTA to the Newfoundland and

Labrador Teachers' Association. The way the act stands now, in order for this to

be made law the act has to be amended in this House, Mr. Speaker. I did not

realize that it was as important as it actually is. The teachers decided last

year or even the year before last that they wanted this change made, however,

they are not allowed to use it formally until it passes through this House. Now

I would suggest that many members of this House have heard the NTA being

referred to as the NLTA. They do it informally, unofficially but technically

they cannot put it on their letterheads, they cannot put it on any contract they

sign and this is simply just fulfilling the letter of the law and putting it

through the House, Mr. Speaker.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we, on this side of the House,

agree with the minister that this piece of legislation is in accordance with the

approved decision of the teachers of this Province. It is housekeeping. Teachers

in Convention, I believe it was in the spring of '93, decided they would change

their name from the Newfoundland Teachers' Association to the Newfoundland and

Labrador Teachers' Association. It represents the collective will of the

association and its membership, we commend it to the House and ask the House to

approve it.

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

Training will close the debate.

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Association

Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill No. 37)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The School

Trustees' Association Act". (Bill No. 29)

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this bill is similar to the

one which we just passed.

Apparently across the country, across Canada today, it is

becoming more and more customary to refer to school boards as school boards

rather than School Trustees' Association. So again, The School Trustees'

Association have asked that the name of their association be changed to the

School Board Association. Once again, it is a case where they have to come to

the House in order to have that - what seems to be a very minor thing - done,

they have to come to the House to get approval and that is the same thing.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the minister has

already said, this again is a housekeeping measure and we, on this side of the

House, support the proposal that is in accordance with the wishes of the

Newfoundland and Labrador School Trustees' Association and it does bring their

title in keeping with other institutions in the Province, and we on this side

will certainly give our approval and consent.

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for a

stimulating discussion, for the outstanding recommendations, for all the time

that he put into this. I really appreciate it. I could say, Mr. Speaker, that

quite often I take encouragement and get good advice from the hon. member, who

helps us as we make our changes in education, and I appreciate the contribution

he made. Therefore, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The School Trustees'

Association Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the

Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 29)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, the next one is the Livestock

Insurance Act Amendment, and the minister seems to have slipped his seat-belt.

If the Clerk would be kind enough to pass me a copy of Bill No. 49, I will take

on the onerous task of moving it. We really must fasten seat-belts here. Your

Honour, in the absence of my friend, when you have called the order I will deal

with it.

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

calling Bill No. 49.

MR. ROBERTS: Bill No. 49, which is Order No. 27, if Your

Honour is ready.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Livestock Insurance Act". (Bill No. 49).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the explanatory notes really

explain everything that needs to be said by way of explanation. This is a bill

that simply helps us to administer the livestock owners compensation scheme. As

members will appreciate, having read the bill and then set it in the context of

the statute that is being amended, it is a very minor administrative type of

amendment. Members should note that it is retroactive. It will be deemed to have

come into effect at the beginning of the current fiscal year, on 31 March, 1994.

I see no particular concerns that I need raise with the

House, but if members have questions my friend, the minister, I think has now

returned and he will no doubt speak to close second reading debate when we get

to that point.

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

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The House Leader is quite right in explaining this bill.

Basically it is very simple. It is to speed up the process so that it is not

bogged down and, of course, the use of technology these days, of facsimiles, and

now it can be done by phone.

I commend the minister for bringing in this part of the bill.

All it does is basically speed up the process and help alleviate any problems

when they are bogged down, when they have to report livestock that is either

killed or injured by predators.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the minister has brought in such

a thing. It will help anybody who is in a situation where they have to report

livestock that have been killed or injured.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to make mention to the

minister, now that he has come back into the House, with livestock owners and

agriculture in the Province in general, that I know that this is part of his

portfolio that he is most familiar with, and I expect to see some other good

things come from the minister in the not too distant future which will help the

agricultural industry in this Province to proceed and develop.

Sometimes the people in this particular industry feel like

they are overshadowed by the different other sectors in the Province but, as the

minister knows, there is great potential for agricultural development in this

Province, and hopefully he will put all of his efforts into improving such

things as he just brought in here in this bill today.

I think out of his whole portfolio, this

section of his

portfolio, food, fisheries and agriculture is, I would say, safe to say that

this is the part of his portfolio that he is most familiar with, and hopefully

we will see some improvements in that particular part of his portfolio so we

will see major improvements to the agricultural industry, because I know that

the minister is very interested in that part of his portfolio, and he should be

with the other parts of food and fisheries, but I can safely say, I think, that

it is the part of his portfolio that he is most familiar with, and with this.

Although a small matter, this particular bill is an

improvement and I commend the minister for taking this action in this particular

bill. What it does is speed up the process. The use of technology, even a

facsimile can be used, I think, is part of the explanatory note. As well as a

"...facsimile, telegram or letter, thus expediting the inspection and claim

process."

It is an improvement but I look forward to more major

improvements in the agriculture industry and more credence given to that part of

his portfolio so that he will make some major improvements in that particular

sector of the economy in the very near future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I agree with

what the previous speakers had to say about this improvement to the lives of

people who own livestock. They mention here about predators. We not only have

the four-legged predators, we have the two-legged predators that cost farmers

out there much money, grief and aggravation through the years. We've seen lots

of t.v. time over periods of what roaming packs of dogs do to sheep. This bill

will remove some of the red tape that these people have gone through in the

past, and it is a good step.

Another incidence around this Province is that a number of

fox farms - some people, rather than put their animals down when the economy got

bad, prices got bad on animals, let them go. They are feeding, or their

offspring are feeding, on other more innocent animals in this Province. This

measure to tighten up and to make it easier for those people who have claims is

a good idea. I commend the minister on making it easier on people.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food

and Agriculture speaks now he will close the debate.

DR. HULAN: I'm not going to continue this debate any

further. It sounds like my hon. colleagues on the opposite side of the House are

very supportive of the amendments to this particular bill. On those few comments

I will move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Livestock Insurance

Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill No. 49)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my friend the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board has slipped his seat belt so I would ask if you would

call Bill No. 47, which is Order No. 28. I will introduce the bill in his

behalf.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Tobacco Tax Act". (Bill No. 47)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of my

friend the minister who is no doubt about important matters I will ask the House

if it would be prepared to amend the tobacco tax act as requested in this bill.

While the bill is itself a fairly lengthy piece of work, in

that there are for or five pages of text, it is really quite a simple principle

that we are putting into the legislation here. The House will recall that last

spring, if memory serves me, we amended the liquor control act to give us

further weapons, further mechanisms, to help us to combat the smuggling of

alcohol into the Province. Alcohol is not the only substance that is smuggled

into the Province unlawfully. There is also tobacco smuggled in unlawfully. The

purpose of this bill is to put into the tobacco tax act - the statute which

regulates the importation and the taxation of tobacco imported into the Province

- provisions similar to those which we've put in the liquor control act.

Members may well wish to have a little flick at this, because

it gives rise to some interesting situations, of which I have no personal

knowledge. I would invite every member when he or she speaks to assure the

House, as I can, that I have never had untaxed tobacco.

I don't smoke!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: No, I say to my friend for Baie Verte -

White Bay, that is not the only reason. I'm one of these naive people who

believes that we really should try to live within the laws because if we don't

the alternative is anarchy. I don't know if he has ever tried anarchy, but if he

has he will acknowledge, as have all of those who have ever tried it, it is not

preferable to the alternative.

You Honour, I won't go on except to say I commend the bill to

the House, and to invite members when they speak to give us their solemn

assurance that not only have they never let untaxed tobacco touch their lips,

but that they will never ever again do it, and that if they come across untaxed

tobacco they will forthwith get right on their horse and go straight to an

inspector. They will note that as provided by

section 1(2) of this act, which

amends

section 39 of the main act by adding after (2) the following, and (3):

Inspector includes both members of the RNC and the RCMP. Anybody who comes

across untaxed tobacco, all that he or she has to do is to go straight to the

nearest RNC or RCMP and say: I am here because you are an inspector by virtue of

the clause which I hope will be added as a result of this bill getting second

reading shortly in this House.

With that said, Sir, I stand and await my hon. friends'

onslaught.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: In the absence of my colleague the Minister of

Finance - or the finance critic, future finance minister, former finance

minister, I guess -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure but I think the

minister said he knows where to get it?

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. TOBIN: Like I said, I'm not sure. The Government

House Leader has said that he doesn't smoke and therefore he doesn't buy it. I

can tell the hon. Government House Leader that I don't smoke either.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No. You were in university a bit before I was.

I smoked. As a matter of fact I quit smoking in 1985, and it was -

MR. ROBERTS: I can remember the day I gave it up. It was

1964. Thirty years ago.

MR. TOBIN: How long?

MR. ROBERTS: Thirty years.

MR. TOBIN: Thirty years. Mr. Speaker, I was only

thirteen, so I probably hadn't begun smoking when the hon. minister quit

smoking. I wasn't old enough to start.

MR. SULLIVAN: I was thirteen when I gave it up, a lot

younger and more sensible.

MR. ROBERTS: Loyola was an early starter. At thirteen he

gave up smoking and took up other vices.

MR. TOBIN: Loyola didn't have time to smoke, he was too

busy talking.

MR. SULLIVAN: Too busy working.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what it is here is the government

again in this piece of legislation is trying to encourage people to smoke,

basically, by bringing in this piece of legislation before the House. Making it

difficult and, Mr. Speaker -

MR. ROBERTS: Are you going to be a few minutes? Can I go

get a cup of tea?

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

MR. ROBERTS: Have I time to go get a cup of tea?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, you have time to go get a cup of tea. He

is too late, look.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) keep it going.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, we will keep it going. On the tobacco tax

act.

Mr. Speaker, how much money I wonder does this government get

in revenues from tobacco tax.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell you here now, look. I suppose

about $60 million, I would say.

MR. TOBIN: About $60 million?

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell you now.

MR. ROBERTS: He doesn't know what the bill is yet but he

will find out.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker. I can tell the hon. minister,

he can go for a cup of coffee. As a matter of fact, he can have lunch and enjoy

his weekend, because we will be on this bill again on Monday.

MR. SULLIVAN: I was right, $62 million.

MR. TOBIN: Now, $62 million this government makes from

the sale of tobacco.

AN HON. MEMBER: This bill is about tobacco.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, this bill is about tobacco. Mr. Speaker,

I'm not sure the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation didn't understand.

Oh, he thought it was about liquor!

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: He doesn't smoke, that is the problem. He is a

bit concerned, he thought it was about liquor and now he finds out it is about

tobacco and as he does not smoke, he is not concerned any more; but this

government is ripping off $62 million from the people in this Province who smoke

cigarettes.

AN HON. MEMBER: And gladly we pay it.

MR. TOBIN: What's that? You would gladly pay it.

I don't know if he should. What this government should be

doing, Mr. Speaker, is spending money educating people against the harmful

effects of smoking. I would say that the vast majority of members sitting in

this Legislature do not smoke; there are a few like the Member for St. John's

South and the Member for Kilbride, a few of them who have not yet been fully

educated or understand the risk of smoking cigarettes and tobacco.

My friend from Stephenville, I don't think he smokes but it

is time that the people of this Province be given an opportunity to look at the

risk involved in smoking tobacco. Why, this government is more concerned about

ripping off $62 million in taxes from cigarette smoking, and make no mistake

about it, that is having an effect on the health care budget in this Province,

the fact that there are so many people who smoke.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology smokes or not, I really don't know but I can say one thing,

that in my home, if anyone visits my home, they don't smoke in the house, and it

doesn't matter, Mr. Speaker, if you are a Minister of the Crown or if you are my

next door neighbour or who you are, out by the door if you are going to smoke.

AN HON. MEMBER: Out on the deck.

MR. TOBIN: Out on the deck.

Mr. Speaker, anyone is welcome to my home, anyone but not to

smoke cigarettes. The Minister of Social Services agrees with me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you supply cigarettes (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I don't supply cigarettes. I don't like

the looks of cigarettes, I say to the minister, I don't even like the look of

them.

Mr. Speaker, this bill that the minister is bringing in,

again, it is to try to clamp down, as he says, on the people who use smuggled

cigarettes. Mr. Speaker, if this government would take a look at why they are

clamping down on smuggled goods, and we are dealing here with tobacco coming in

to this Province - why doesn't the government look at reducing the tax on

tobacco and cigarettes in this Province, and create a situation where it is not

worth the chance for people to go out and smuggle goods in from the French

islands or wherever; where people would not be interested in purchasing smuggled

goods because the risk would be too great? If government would reduce the taxes

on tobacco and liquor in this Province, then they would automatically eliminate

the smuggling of goods into this Province. There would be no problem, and I

would say, Mr. Speaker, that what the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

should be looking at, and what his colleagues should be encouraging him to do,

is to reduce the taxation that they have put on the people of this Province.

They have created a situation in this Province where people obviously look for

an alternative and that alternative, Mr. Speaker, is to buy cheap cigarettes.

Why are people buying cheap cigarettes?... because they want

to smoke and they cannot afford anymore to go out and purchase them at a store

because of the rate of taxation that has been levelled, so the sensible and the

logical thing for this government to do, and I would suspect that in the long

run if they reduced the taxation on tobacco and liquor, they would probably gain

more money from taxation than they are today, because that is one way to curb

and to prevent smuggled goods coming into this Province.

Mr. Speaker, everybody has to be concerned, particularly

about the availability of tobacco and liquor to the young people in this

Province. What has to happen is that this government has to approach it, rather

than looking at tobacco and liquor as a way to make millions of dollars, rather

than looking at it as a way - as we said, in tobacco tax, $62 million a year

coming into the Province. What this government has to do, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SULLIVAN: It is going to be higher (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: It is going to higher, yes. What this

government has to look at is bringing in a realistic taxation system whereby the

people will purchase it. What is now being purchased from smugglers in this

Province would not happen, Mr. Speaker.

I guess to some extent, and I certainly don't condone it, but

what you are seeing in this Province today is people being forced to try to

provide for their families. I would think that is another reason you are seeing

people involved in the smuggling trade. People are doing it out of necessity.

This government has done nothing to create economic stability in this Province.

This government has done absolutely nothing to create jobs which create a

climate whereby people can become employed. The social assistance caseload in

this Province is almost unmanageable. There are not enough social workers in

this Province today to manage the caseload of the Department of Social Services.

I know that, the minister knows that.

People cannot survive on the money that they are getting -

who have to live on social assistance. There is just no way that people in this

Province can look forward to a bright Christmas who depend solely on social

assistance. What government is doing is driving people to become involved in

illegal activities. As I said from the beginning, it is not something I support

or condone, but it is something that this government is creating day in and day

out. This government is creating people being forced out to try to make a few

dollars on the side.

You have the Minister of Employment and Labour Relation. He

should hang his head in shame. Here he is minister of that department for a few

months and it has been the longest time - here we are into December, the last

month of 1994, and not a job creation program put in place for the people of

this Province. When the former Minister of Forestry and Agriculture was there I

can say there were jobs put in place. When the former Minister of Fisheries was

in Cabinet they had jobs put in place. What has happened to this Minister of

Fisheries, Food and Agriculture that he has not put in place some economic

stimulus for the people of this Province? That he has not gone after the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to do something.

I will say that if this side of the House does not continue

to present petitions, if the people do not continue to speak loudly as they have

been in the last little while, there will be nothing done. I will make a

prediction and I hope I'm right. I believe that because of the efforts of the

Members for Kilbride, Baie Verte - White Bay, St. Mary's - The Capes and others,

because of the constant effort, the constant harassment that they have inflicted

upon the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, that within the matter of

a few days we will probably here something coming as it relates to an employment

project. I think we have to keep it up on this side of the House. We've got to

continue to hammer the minister, nail him into the ground, embarrass the

Cabinet, and sooner or later something may happen.

Now I -

AN HON. MEMBER: What bill are you on?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm on the bill that deals with

the tobacco tax act. What I'm saying is that this government is forcing people

into illegal activities because they've no job creation strategy. People are

starving in this Province. What I'm saying, I would say to the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology, is that I'm encouraging my colleagues to

continue to pound the minister.

I know that my colleague for Grand Bank has been in Ottawa

the last couple of days having meetings, meeting with Mr. Tobin and others.

Hopefully all of the efforts will finally pay dividends.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are trying to get credit for him now?

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not important who gets

credit. All I am doing is encouraging my colleagues to continue to pound the

minister to get something done. We have seen what happened when there was

nothing said. When this Legislature wasn't open, Mr. Speaker, nothing happened.

There was no job creation put in place. The minister had nothing done and there

were no papers submitted to Cabinet. Cabinet approved nothing. We have seen

that. Since this House opened, day in and day out, we have never seen a day when

a petition was not brought before this House demanding that job creation be put

in place.

We will keep it up. I can tell the minister today that we

will keep it up. We will not let him rest until he finally takes some action,

and the sooner he takes it the easier his life will become. As long as he does

nothing we will hound him and pound him until he takes some action on getting

some job creation programs put in place so Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can

make an honest living.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want to earn a

living honestly. They do not want to be involved in the smuggling trade. They do

not want to be involved in that, and anyone who is doing it, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: No, I do not know anyone who is doing it. I do

not know about the Minister of Finance. I do not know anyone, I say to the

minister, but anyone who is going over to St. Pierre, if that is what you are

referring to, I would think it is the economic situation of this Province that

is causing an awful lot of it.

Anyway, I will not be distracted by the Minister of Social

Services, not this time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: To be honest with you, I say to the minister,

that I was over in St. Pierre twice in my life.

AN HON. MEMBER: The first trip lasted three months and

the second one lasted four.

MR. TOBIN: It is a very serious situation, and the

smuggling is very serious, too, I say to my colleagues. It is a very serious

situation and something none of us can condone, nor should we, but we should not

force people into doing it. People cannot exist on social assistance today.

The Minister of Finance is not in his seat today but he

should be in his seat when we are speaking on this piece of legislation. The

Minister of Finance is out working too hard trying to cover up the scandal that

he is involved in in this Province, the scandal that this government, the

Premier, and everyone in the Cabinet is involved in. You cannot refer to private

members. Probably some of them were involved in it in the past.

The Minister of Finance is not in this Legislature today

dealing with his bills and having them introduced because he is too busy

involved in trying to cover up the mistakes. He is not here telling us about the

meeting he had with Tom Hickman and them fellows on two or three occasions. He

has gone out to check his files. The minister is gone out to check his files

again to see if he can find another Cabinet paper.

MR. CRANE: That's terrible.

MR. TOBIN: It is terrible. I agree with the Member for

Harbour Grace, that it is terrible for government to be involved in such a

scandal. I support what he is saying, but it is not just the minister who should

be out covering it up. It should not all fall on the Minister of Fiance. It

should fall on all ministers today who were involved in Cabinet. Some of them

are not in Cabinet now, but the minister has clearly stated that they are part

of this scandal, and it is not fair that we are debating a piece of legislation

wherein the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board refuses to sit in the House.

Maybe he is gone out for a meeting with someone to see what is going on.

What we are seeing here today is the government out to try to

make a fortune every way they can, the government out to take people's homes,

take their houses, take their cars, take everything they have. That is what is

in this piece of legislation, and I don't know how many members opposite are

familiar with it, but that is what is in this piece of legislation.

What else is in this piece of legislation is that a

government is more interested in making money, taxes, from the smokers of this

Province than they are in educating people of the negative effects of smoking.

The Minister of Health is over there. He should be involved

in this debate as well. The Minister of Health should be saying to the

government: You are taking $62 million on taxes. I would ask the Minister of

Health: I wonder what kind of a strain is that on our health care system when

you have that many people out smoking today?

What he should be doing and what government should be doing

is educating people against smoking, taking part of the money that they make on

tobacco tax and putting it into a program to educate people against smoking, why

they shouldn't smoke, and that goes for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs also, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, boy, that is what I am saying, that you

are part of the government that is driving it -

AN HON. MEMBER: What would happen to the underground

economy on the Burin Peninsula then?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I doubt for a minute if there is

any underground economy on the Burin Peninsula, I say to the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs - doubt very much - and I am sure that the

Member for Harbour Breton would concur with what I am saying, that he doubts if

there is an underground economy. The only thing happening on the Burin Peninsula

is that people are being forced to do stuff because there are no jobs in this

Province. This government has abandoned the job market, has abandoned the labour

market.

What did they do the other day? Three hundred and fifty jobs

the other day -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Three hundred and fifty jobs the other day

this government wiped off the Burin Peninsula, just like that. That is what is

going on with the economy. No wonder people are forced to try to survive. No

wonder people are forced to try to make a living in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Mount Pearl is going to have

more to say on this bill and today's time is running by, and there are two or

three other speakers, so I will conclude my remarks and let the Member for Mount

Pearl take over.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak to

this bill for a few moments.

My friend from Burin - Placentia West, I think, has made some

very excellent points on this particular piece of legislation. The bill itself

doesn't contain a great deal that needs a lot of debate. It is the principle

more than the content of the bill in this particular case that is of concern

here.

As my friend has pointed out, what you are doing is causing a

lot of people who are forced by the economy today to be involved in activities

which are illegal, and we don't condone that - I am not supporting that - but I

think we must be cognizant of the reasons why people are involved in that.

Now you are stiffening up the penalties because you have a

problem. My friend from Burin - Placentia West put his finger on the crux of the

problem. It is the level of taxation. If you didn't have the differential costs

of tobacco and alcohol products to Newfoundland and St. Pierre and other parts

of Canada and the United States, then you wouldn't have the need for as much

enforcement as we are seeing here, so the response here -

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a road hazard.

MR. WINDSOR: I have all day, Mr. Speaker, if the hon.

Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde wants to be foolish and show his level of

intelligence to the House of Assembly. I have all day; I can start again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Port de Grave.

MR. WINDSOR: Port de Grave, sorry. I apologize to the

Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde. The hon. the Member for Port de Grave is in a

class of his own when it comes to level of intelligence, intelligent comment and

contribution to this House, as we saw when he introduced a couple of pieces of

legislation over the last couple of weeks, important pieces of legislation and

he couldn't utter more than thirty seconds on that particular piece of

legislation. All he has is silly comments, catcalls, heckling and this sort of

thing. It contributes nothing to the House of Assembly. It is an insult, Mr.

Speaker, to the House of Assembly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is to support what my

friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West has said, that the real problem

here is the level of taxation imposed on these products. They all have to be

regulated, we appreciate that.

In the case of tobacco, we have recently introduced changed

laws dealing with the age of smoking, of being able to purchase tobacco, and I

don't disagree with that either, Mr. Speaker. I guess, many of us here, the

reformed smokers such as myself, would say that nobody should be smoking, but

that is a right that certain ministers, certain colleagues and certain

individuals choose to have, and to partake in those activities. Well, that is

their right. Even though it isn't good for their health, it is not for us to

impose that on people.

Although, I must say if I went back, I remember when we had

the great debate on seat-belt legislation there were a lot of people at the time

who said, `You don't have the right, as a government, to impose on me what I

have to do in my vehicle.' That was a compelling argument that people were

making: `How can you tell me that I must put on a seat-belt in my own car?' The

counter-argument to that, which I thought was very powerful was, `Well, fine,

don't put on your seat-belt - waive a right to free medical treatment,' I mean,

a very important point, waive your rights to these sorts of things. If you are

going to go and beat yourself up in your car, then make sure you have insurance

to protect others -

MR. ROBERTS: And don't expect us to pay the hospital

bills.

MR. WINDSOR: - and don't expect us to pay the hospital

bills. I say to my friend, the Government House Leader, that was the argument

that convinced me, because I was a little hesitant, I wasn't totally in favour

of seat-belts.

There were two things - I am off the topic here, Mr. Speaker,

but it ties in - there were two things that convinced me to support seat-belt

legislation ultimately, which I did. One was that argument that if you don't

want to wear seat-belts, then don't expect us to pay for your damages, your

medical bills. Don't expect us to support your family if you are killed, and all

the rest of it. I guess, a third argument would be that you don't have a right

to cause injury to somebody else. The other argument I saw was at a fair in the

arena in Mount Pearl, I think it was the Kinsmen Fall Fair. There was a display

set up by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation which was

actually an impact machine where you could sit into a car seat, it slid down a

slope and came to an abrupt stop at the end of that. You only slid five or six

feet but your velocity at the end of that was 5 miles an hour - and all you want

to do, Mr. Speaker, is sit in that seat and hit the end of that little slide at

5 miles an hour and find out the impact it had on the seat-belt you had on, the

jolt you took, and it was only 5 miles an hour. Anybody who sat in it said, `You

mean, at 5 miles an hour, this is what happens to me? Imagine what happens at 60

miles an hour or 70 miles an hour?' That was before the days of kilometres.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, then, if two cars came head-on, each

of them going 50 miles an hour (inaudible) hit a brick wall (inaudible) 100

miles an hour -

MR. WINDSOR: No, it is exactly the same, you come to an

abrupt stop.

MR. ROBERTS: The force is then (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: There is no difference to your car in

hitting a brick wall at 50 miles an hour and hitting a car coming in the

opposite direction at 50 miles an hour - you both come to an immediate stop.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. HEWLETT: Yes, but the force of your car (inaudible)

on each car.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, but the force is on both cars, so it is

divided in half again. You are getting into the theory of kinetics.

MR. ROBERTS: Maybe that is why I became a lawyer and not

an engineer.

MR. WINDSOR: Exactly, yes, but the imp