December

15, 1994

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 81

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

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

The Premier not being in the House today, I would like to

direct my questions to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Since

the unemployment rate in this Province is at 21 per cent, the highest ever, and

the number of people on social assistance is at a record high, and in view of

the fact that this government has provided an emergency program each year since

taking office, how can you justify to the people of this Province that your

government will not proceed with an emergency employment program this year on a

stand-alone basis?

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

Labour Relations.

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

As I have already told my hon. friends opposite, all the

employment generation programs that were initiated this year were cost- shared

between the Provincial and Federal Governments. When we approached this problem

early in the Fall, obviously, we had to take the same course of action.

Now, I say to the hon. member that the time and the

negotiation process, and/or the dealings with the Federal Government, are, I

would suggest, very close to nigh, and we will have an answer very, very soon

for the hon. member concerning the emergency response program.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to point out to the minister

that it is not the Federal Government's responsibility, but this government's

responsibility, to respond to a tremendous need, an emergency such as this

Province has never seen.

Let me ask the minister: Can he elaborate on what the Premier

said to the media yesterday, that it is just as well for people to be on social

assistance as to be working on government job programs. Doesn't the government

realize that the people of this Province would rather work at anything for a day

than be on welfare for a day? Doesn't this government understand the notion of

dignity?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: I have absolutely no intent of responding to

what the Premier said. The Premier said yesterday what he said yesterday. My

concern, as the minister responsible for this program, is to continue to do the

best we can to provide the people of the Province with immediate, short-term,

necessary funding. We are working very hard at it, I say to the hon. member.

This is a Liberal government and we will continue to work hard at it.

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

for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, working hard is one thing -

producing results is another, and this government has failed, to this point, to

produce any results for the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this:

In view of the fact that this government is protecting, and protecting, let

there be no doubt, a budgetary surplus, can you, Minister, stand in your place

today and justify why a program has not been issued? Will you stand today and

commit that you will do everything in your power and that you will force your

government to announce an emergency employment program today that will bring

some good news to people in this Province before Christmas?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Let me say to the hon. member that we are

doing everything in our power. The problem is, we are suffering the consequence

of the aftermath of seventeen years of wasteful administration, and it is very

tough for this government to pick up all the programs that need to be addressed

with the dollars that are available.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Yes, I say to the member, this government is

doing everything it can and we will continue to do so.

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 Natural

Resources.

The Department of Environment and Lands brought in

regulations cited as the All-Terrain Vehicle Use Regulations, 1993. Now the

intent of these regulations was to control the use of ATVs over environmentally

sensitive terrain such as wetlands.

Now, will the minister admit that these regulations went far

beyond the protection of such environments and will he make immediate changes to

those regulations?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have no plans to make any

immediate changes to any regulations, but I have said publicly and the

Environment minister has said publicly, that over the winter we intend to review

the regulations that were put in place a year ago, and we will consult the

public when we review these regulations and determine whether of not there is a

need for any changes. There may be a need for some changes, if so, we will find

out during the consultation process.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, if you had consulted the public when

you brought them in, we wouldn't need to be consulting the public on changes to

those regulations.

Now, I wrote the minister, too, on December 6, expressing a

concern. A twelve-year-old child from my district ventured out on to a portion

of a highway and had his father's bike confiscated by police. Now, that family

lives 4.5 kilometres off the main highway on a road that is not accessible by

automobile. The child needs the bike to get 4.5 kilometres back and forth, 9

kilometres a day, to a bus stop in order to get to school. The father needs the

bike to get to work, as well as for other family needs, and in case of medical

emergencies.

There is no flexibility in those regulations to permit

discretionary judgement by the justice system. I ask the minister - and I asked

him on December 6 in a letter - will he just change the word `shall' in these

regulations to `may' to give the justice system flexibility to give a penalty

that is in proportion to the offense?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the particular

case that the hon. member has mentioned in the House today. He has discussed it

with me, I have discussed it with my staff. I've asked my staff to review the

case. As a matter of fact, I asked my Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for

these regulations to have a discussion directly with the hon. member. If that

has not happened, I would certainly expect that it will happen soon, and look

forward to him getting more details on it.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the

Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Yesterday, in the

House, I asked the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who tabled

the legislation, Bill 62, some questions pertaining to that particular piece of

legislation. I would like to ask the minister now responsible for municipalities

around the Province - the minister yesterday just went through second reading on

Bill 17, which is an amendment to the regulations to the road component, to try

to put that in by regulation every year, thereby decreasing the incentive

component of the MOG every year.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation on the

$3,500 per kilometre for snow clearing for municipalities in the Province next

year will bring this - next year it will come into effect. Would the minister

now tell the House if he agrees with this piece of legislation now being brought

in by his colleague, Bill No. 62?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, there is a question here directly

related to a bill that will be debated in the House sooner or later. The thing

that surprises me is that one part of the bill basically says such a transfer

requires the permission of municipalities except where a bypass road is

constructed.

What we are basically saying in that bill that my hon.

colleague has put forward is that we will go out and consult with communities,

and do everything we possibly can to encourage communities to take over these

roads, but we certainly won't force communities to take over the roads.

This particular bill I do support, yes, and there are a lot

of communities in the Province that support it as well. In fact, in my riding

alone there have been a number of communities that have asked the minister, by

letter, to allow them to take over roads. There is a mayor coming in from the

Baie Verte Peninsula after Christmas to make a proposal to this minister to

basically let him, and let his community, do a number of roads that are now

being done by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. So in a lot

of cases around the Province towns are asking for this.

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, I do support my colleague and

this particular bill. When this particular bill comes to the House, then I am

sure that both myself and my hon. colleague, and anyone from the other side,

will have ample opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley, a

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The minister just quoted a

section of the explanatory note.

It has nothing to do with what is in this particular bill. The explanatory note

mentions a bypass highway and so on, but that has nothing to do...

Would the minister now rise in his place and tell me if he

agrees with

section 38.(1) of this bill that says: ...the minister may, by

order, transfer a highway or part of a highway that is under the jurisdiction

and control of the department to a municipal authority in which that highway is

located.

Mr. Speaker, this is, and is stated in the act, by order -

not in the Municipalities Act now. It is nowhere to be found under Works,

Services and Transportation. Could the minister stand in his place now and say

that this means the same thing?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

By order, basically, I guess, is after the deal has been

struck with the municipality then the order has to be issued to consummate the

deal, I suppose, in being able to pass or transfer roads that were maintained by

the Department of Works, Services and Transportation on to the community.

Let me tell the member a little story. Back in 1986, and the

story relates directly to the question, then the Minister of Transportation, a

Mr. Dawe at that particular time, came to the Town of Carbonear and said to us,

and I was mayor at the time: We would like to pass over all the jurisdiction

that we have on all the roads in the Carbonear area to the municipality. And I

said: For what?' He said: well, we will pay you a certain amount of money to

take over these roads and maintain these roads from now on and we want to get

out of it. But, Mr. Speaker, I remember the member at the time coming to me and

basically telling me that it was a policy that was created by his government at

that particular point in time and there was nothing wrong with the policy

because as the mayor at the time, Mr. Speaker, it was a sizable figure, it was

almost $400,000. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Premier came to Carbonear when

he was opening the by-pass road, passed me the cheque and then told me to leave

because I was not invited to the party that he was having for three days to open

the by-pass road. Now I remember that distinctly.

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this

proposal. There are hundreds and hundreds of kilometres of roads in this

Province that municipalities can financially, I suppose, look after when it

comes to snow clearing and maintenance. We, as a government, will provide

whatever means, be it money, be it whatever, to those municipalities when we

decide - if the municipalities in concert with the municipalities - what roads

we are going to pass over to them. So I will go back and say again, I do support

the legislation without any doubt and just about every member on that side

supported it back or at least those who were sitting in the House in 1986

supported that legislation at that time and I believe the hon. member was

sitting in the House at that particular time.

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

for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know, Mr. Speaker, where the minister has been for

the last few weeks but what he just stated back in '76 and what has been in

place in this Province ever since 1976 is a policy that whereby any

municipality, in consultation with the Department of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs and Department of Works, Services and Transportation could take over a

road provided that road was brought up to Department of Works, Services and

Transportation standards. It was always there and never, Mr. Speaker, is there

anything to be found in the Municipalities Act whereby - now the minister knows

and his backbenchers over there - this time they had better speak up before it

is too late - in this case, Mr. Speaker, the minister can, by order, not

consultation, not negotiation, by order. Now will the minister stand in his

place and admit to the municipalities in the Province and the people who are

concerned with this because it is going to cost them thousands and thousands of

dollars, admit that this is a drastic and draconian change to this legislation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, as a past mayor of Carbonear, as the past President of the

Federation of Municipalities, I can assure this House that I will do everything

I possibly can to help and maintain the status quo, at least if it is

financially viable, to the communities, the town councils, around this Province.

This member does not have to stand and say or try to impress

people that he is the only one in this House who feels for municipalities around

this Province. I have just as much feeling if not more for the municipalities in

this Province, and I can assure the member that everyone on this side of the

House feels exactly the same as I do. So don't worry, I say to the hon. member,

we will do the right thing when the right time comes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

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

the Minister of Natural Resources about Hydro. Yesterday my colleague for Burin

- Placentia West asked the minister questions about the failure of Hydro's gas

turbine at the Holyrood plant on the weekend. Perhaps because the minister

misunderstood the questions or perhaps because he is trying to hide difficulty

at Holyrood the minister said there was no problem with the gas turbine. Yet the

minister's own statement which he tabled on Monday said, and I quote: "On the

evening of December 10th, problems were encountered with the Gas Turbines both

at Holyrood and Hardwoods." Page 3 of the statement.

I would like to ask the minister if he can now tell the House

of Assembly why Hydro's gas turbine installed at a cost of over $10 million in

recent years at Holyrood failed to fulfil its one and only purpose, which was

instant restart electricity during a blackout. Why did that gas turbine fail on

the weekend?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and others

obviously don't understand what happened at 1:35 p.m. on Saturday afternoon

during the blackout. When at 1:35 p.m. a major breaker faulted at Holyrood

everything at Holyrood that was operating went down automatically. It went down.

Nobody could manually interfere with the going down of that system. Nobody

could.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker, the member doesn't know

what she is talking about. You don't know what you are talking about. The system

went down automatically. Nobody could manually interfere with that system going

down. They would be at risk themselves personally. The whole system in Holyrood

would have been at risk if anyone tried to manually interfere. The system was

under the control of the automatic operation and it went down automatically.

Everything operating went down automatically at 1:35 p.m. as a result of that

failure of the breaker at Holyrood.

It went down properly. They had to cool it down properly so

that they wouldn't have a major disruption and major damage to the Holyrood

system. After it went down properly, properly controlled, then they started to

bring it back. Everything at Holyrood went down.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, everything went down, but it was

brought back properly. Nobody could stop it instantly and have it instantly

re-going.

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

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the minister. It is

the minister who doesn't understand what happened at Holyrood, it is the

minister who doesn't understand the difference between the gas turbine and the

thermal units at Holyrood.

I would like to ask the minister, why did Hydro install at a

cost of over $10 million a gas turbine at Holyrood? Wasn't it for the express

purpose of bringing up power instantly in the event of a blackout such as we had

on the weekend? Why then did the minister say in his own statement that he

tabled on Monday: "On the evening of December 10th, problems were encountered

with the Gas Turbines both at Holyrood and Hardwoods."

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can't seem to

understand that everything at Holyrood went down at that time when that major

breaker faulted. The small gas turbine that is there, as well as the steam

units, everything went down, and everything stayed down. The steam units had to

cool down properly. Everything was down.

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

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the minister. Why

was the gas turbine down when it should have been up?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, everything at Holyrood was

operating properly before 1:35 p.m. on Saturday. Everything was operating fine,

and the Hardwoods gas turbine was also operating fine and providing power.

Everything was working fine, but when line 217 from the Western Avalon to bring

in power from Bay d'Espoir was energized and brought on, and the breaker at

Holyrood was connected automatically, or connected by the operator -

automatically from inside, but not from outside, manually - the breaker blew,

the breaker faulted, and when that happened it knocked out everything. It

knocked out the gas turbine; it knocked out the steam units, and when that

happened, because of the nature of the systems in place there, they go down

automatically, and it takes time for everything to go down automatically.

MS. VERGE: You don't understand (inaudible).

DR. GIBBONS: I do know what you are saying. Madam member,

I do understand what you are saying, but the system had to cool down properly,

and then they were out there in the dark and nothing could come on for awhile,

but they eventually solved their problems.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

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

the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

According to the exceptions to the Tendering Act, your

department has recently purchased a combine harvester at $18,000. I would like

to ask the minister why your department has purchased this twenty-year-old piece

of equipment, a 1975 John Deere combine harvester?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For a moment this fall I thought they had forgotten all about

one very important part of this portfolio, and that is food and agriculture.

A few years ago, in view of the Province's effort to

establish an alternate feed program for the livestock industry, the department

started some very significant grain trials, primarily on the West Coast of the

Island but some here adjacent to the research station in Mount Pearl, but most

of it on the West Coast of the Island, where they have demonstrated very, very

clearly that we can grow quite well and very economically grain such as -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. HULAN: The hon. gentleman from Marystown - I think I

have it right this time - often has, in this House, a -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. HULAN: - a diarrhoea of words and a constipation of

ideas.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does he have today?

AN HON. MEMBER: Both.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. minister to address the question that

was asked.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will do that, and in the process of doing this work on

grains we also had to acquire a combine harvester. Such a harvester was found

that was in excellent condition, at a very, very reasonable... To be honest with

you, I believe it came from Nova Scotia, but it was in excellent condition, at

an extremely reasonable price, within the limitations of budget, and the

purchase was made.

Now, with regard to the question as to whether the department

had gone through the Tendering Act, I think in this particular case -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the minister to resume his seat and I will ask

for a supplementary. The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, the machine came from Prince Edward Island. I

will just inform the minister of that.

I will try to keep the questions as brief as I can, so maybe

the minister can answer the same way, and this time answer the question. I would

like to ask the minister: Where is this machine now? Is it still owned by his

department, and has any grain been harvested yet by this piece of equipment?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

I know my hon. friend from Baie Verte - White Bay really

wants some assistance in the future and I can assure you he is going to get it

because he asked the question that I wanted him to ask. Had the combine

harvester harvested any grain? Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, in this hon. House,

that I had the opportunity two months ago, to sit on that combine harvester and

harvest wheat in Robinsons. I harvested wheat in Robinsons only three miles away

from my birthplace; so yes, indeed, it has been used to harvest grains on the

West Coast.

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

for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: I am pleased to hear he harvested grain

because I don't think the minister has a grain himself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like the

minister, this time, to answer the question. I will give the

preamble, the

minister can answer the question.

First of all, when this crop was planted, Mr. Speaker, I say

to the minister, there were no intentions by the former minister, the former

department to purchase a harvester and all of a sudden, within hours or days of

the member taking over his portfolio, we had a combine harvester purchased out

of Prince Edward Island. When was it purchased, that is what I asked the

minister; secondly, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister, whose scheme this

was, to experiment with growing grain in this Province? Does the minister have

any studies to indicate that this Province will be able to compete successfully

with the Prairie Provinces?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I should like to tell this hon. House that the combine

harvester in question was purchased by a minister with great foresight into the

Agri-Food industry of this Province and that was my predecessor. He had great

foresight and he decided that this Province should become self-sufficient in

feed grain and he purchased that combine harvester to achieve that.

Now the other thing that I should tell this hon. House that I

will make every effort to make sure that the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay

has an opportunity to sit in the cab with me, next year, as I combine more wheat

and more grains on the West Coast, and no, with regard to putting Western Canada

out of grain production, well, that is always something that you have to strive

towards is that goal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. HULAN: It is a goal that we must strive towards.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I thought that the smurf in Smurf and Turf had an open

mind but it is just vacant.

Anyway, on a more serious note, Mr. Speaker, I have a

question for the Minister of Health.

In line of our conversations Sunday night subsequent and

other conversation on Tuesday afternoon, and yesterday afternoon concerning the

Gateway Residence in Dunville and the appalling treatment senior citizens had,

would you be able to inform this hon. House of your latest findings sir, please?

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

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

Thank you for the question. I find it difficult to stand at

this point and follow the illustrious act of my colleague here, in fact, I don't

think I would even aspire to that level of competence and greatness in oratory.

But as to the question you asked, the hon. member knows full

well because I already shared the findings of the staff from my department with

him yesterday as to the visit we had with the personal care home in Placentia.

He is asking for purposes of the media gallery I would think but it will gain

him no political points when he tries to use or suggest that the elderly, the

weak, the disadvantaged and those who need personal care are not being cared

for. The people at the home in Placentia that he referred to, my staff visited

them, they talked to the management, they talked to everyone of the residents

that were there and the findings were basically this, that given the

circumstances of the weekend past they were cared for and they agreed that they

had been cared for in as humane and in as caring a fashion as could be

reasonably expected under the circumstances. To try and say that that is not the

case is to try and make political points on the backs of those who are most

vulnerable and who least deserve that type of treatment. I would suggest that

the hon. member take due notice of that with regard to the question on this

issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

public galleries from Port Saunders, the Mayor, Tony Ryan, and councillor Randy

Patey.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I shall on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce, and I hope to adopt, the following resolution:

WHEREAS society has a collective responsibility for the

wellbeing of children;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Members for Conception Bay

South, Port au Port, and Waterford - Kenmount, be, and are hereby appointed as a

select committee to examine into and to report upon, (

a) the present legislation

and policies of Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to services to children,

(

b) the legislative changes, or enactment and policy changes, if any, which are

required to promote mechanisms through which the wellbeing of children may be

enhanced, and (

c) other matters directly and necessarily related thereto. That

the committee be authorized to send for persons and papers, to sit in session

and out, and sit from place to place throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and

that the committee are directed to report to the House by December 31, 1995.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS. YOUNG: I would like to respond to a question raised

in the House yesterday by the hon. Member for Kilbride. He raised the question

of providing funding to one of his constituents to visit a daughter who was a

patient in a hospital in Halifax.

Now, I would like to point out that, that question was raised

earlier by the member and it was also addressed by the Deputy Minister of Social

Services. The policy was explained to him and I think that by raising the

question again yesterday he was just raising false hopes for the family involved

and trying to score political points.

The policy states that we are not prepared to provide funding

for travel except for parents of dependent children. This policy has been in

effect for many, many years going back to the previous government.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. Member for

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: I resent the remarks by the Minister of

Social Services. I raised the question in this House because neither my

constituent or myself were not satisfied with the policy. It is unjust and it

should be reviewed. I raised the question legitimately yesterday and I did in no

way, share or form try to raise the expectations, or provide false hopes for any

of my constituents.

Thank you.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it is my submission that is not

even a point of privilege let alone a point of order. All I say to the hon.

gentleman is, `as yea sow so shall you reap', he got exactly what he deserved on

this one.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The

minister did not respond to Answers to Questions at all. She gave a political

speech initially there, and I think it was only proper and in order for the

Member for Kilbride to voice his concerns on that matter.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order.

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the minister clearly responded to

the question, gave an clear answer, gave an answer in private, and gave an

answer here in the House. It was a clear answer.

MR. SPEAKER: To the two points of order raised. First on

imputing motives, members do it from time to time and the Chair shows some

latitude. From what I recall of the question and the answer probably the member

and the minister are equally at fault in that case.

Secondly, in as much as members in asking questions use the

occasion to give something of a speech, ministers take advantage of the same

opportunity. In either case I don't think that is a fair point of order to raise

at this point, so I will pass on it.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to table

in this hon. House today an answer to a question that was raised by the hon.

Member for Mount Pearl a few days ago. It wasn't raised in Question Period but

I'm going to table the answer anyhow. It was raised during a debate on a matter.

The question related to whether this Province was exporting hundreds of

thousands of pounds of chicken out of the Province. I have an answer that I will

table.

I will simply say that indeed, and I'm very proud to say,

there is chicken being exported out of the Province, because it is in line with

the future of the agri-food industry and further and secondary processing. It is

an excellent secondary processed product that is being shipped out that has

gained some considerable attention on the mainland of Canada because it is such

a good product.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) lose on it.

DR. HULAN: We don't lose on it, really. In fact I can

tell you one of the products that we are shipping out also is a de-boned product

that normally sells for $0.20 to $0.60 a pound, usually at closer to $0.20 a

pound. We have a contract over there at $0.47 a pound. Not bad at all.

The other answer that I should like to table, Mr. Speaker, is

in relation to the hon. Member for Grand Bank yesterday regarding TAGS. Again I

will table this answer, but I will simply state that one part of the question

related to how the money might be shifting from this Province to cover off TAGS

recipients in the other Atlantic provinces and Quebec. My department has

received assurance from the federal people that Newfoundland's share of $1.4

billion of the $1.9 billion will not be reduced. Thank you.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. WHELAN: May I present a petition to the hon. Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation. The prayer of the petition is as follows:

To the hon. House of Assembly in parliament assembled, the

petition of the undersigned residents of the District of Harbour Main humbly

sweareth:

Whereas there are many hundreds of people on the Avalon Peninsula who

work at the Bull Arm site travelling the Trans-Canada Highway in the very early

hours of the morning; and

whereas snow clearing doesn't commence until some time

after the initial traffic rush; and

whereas the roads are and have been very

treacherous, causing a number of minor accidents in recent weeks; be it

therefore resolved that the Department of Works, Services and Transportation's

crew be instructed to coordinate their snow clearing efforts to precede the

departure of the workers. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Dated December 15 1994.

Mr. Speaker, as the prayer of the petition indicates there

are a number of people who work at the Bull Arm site, not only from the District

of Harbour Main but from all over the Avalon Peninsula. The number of people who

have signed here on this petition is approximately 700. I understand that there

are more petitions forthcoming. I know that the hon. Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation has in the past shown some sympathy with regard to people who

travel back and forth. I know that he has opened roads to facilitate people

travelling back and forth their roads that heretofore have never been cleared

before in the wintertime. I realize that he certainly has the best interest of

these people at heart.

I would strongly suggest that he take a very serious look at

the conditions of the road and the conditions that the people have to travel

back and forth on on a daily basis in the wintertime. At this particular hour in

the morning the roads seem to be more treacherous than any other time of day. It

is before the dawn and usually the ice and snow does not have a chance to melt.

The highways equipment usually goes on the road at about 4:00 or 4:30 in the

morning which is around the same time that these people leave home. I realize

that the equipment cannot be everywhere at once but if they were to start an

extra hour or two earlier and perhaps take into consideration the fact that

people are travelling back again in the evening, to try and coordinate their

efforts to have the snow clearing equipment, sanders and graders, precede the

workers, it would certainly be of benefit to these people. I strongly suggest

and strongly urge that the minister look into this with a view to resolving it

to the satisfaction of these people. Thank you very much.

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

MR. WOODFORD: I rise in support of the Member for Harbour

Main, Mr. Speaker, in relation to that particular petition. The petition I

believe calls for - to make sure that the roads are salted, sanded, cleared and

so on, Mr. Speaker, early in the mornings so that people working in Bull Arm can

get back and forth from the members district and I guess other districts around

the Avalon Peninsula. I am well aware of that, Mr. Speaker, I just came from

Harbour Main this morning, Harbour Main district myself, I visited my parents

out there. I had two brothers - I got one still working on the Hibernia site who

just came off work very early this morning and so I can vouch, fairly

categorical, what the roads are like between Harbour Main, specifically and Bull

Arm but more so, Mr. Speaker, I can - and the member alluded to the fact that it

is early in the morning that the roads seem to be worst than other parts of the

day.

Well, Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago - tomorrow morning it will

be two weeks since there was a very, very serious accident just outside of

Benton in Gander. There was a head on collision, three individuals were killed

and one survived. Two people were from Springdale and one from Deer Lake, in my

district. The gentlemen worked at Bull Arm, the two of them, himself and his

buddy. Another gentleman, a friend of mine from Cormack, Mr. Bud Hiscock,

survived. He was the only survivor out of that crash, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I

visited him in the hospital, the first time he came too in two weeks and he is

down there now strapped up but he is going to make it. He is going to make it.

This was at 8:40 in the morning with black ice on the road, just outside of

Gander. Now there may be an excuse early in the morning, Mr. Speaker, but there

is no excuse for that hour of the day.

Now we don't know what can happen. We don't know, temperature

changes and so on. This kind of stuff I know can happen periodically but the

foreman on the roads, as far as I am concerned, should be out and should be out

early enough to have those sanders, graders, salt trucks and whatever on the

roads. Very sad situations happened in the last couple of weeks in our Province,

Mr. Speaker, and I can associate with the thoughts of the member and the

requirements, the wishes and the requests from the people of Harbour Main and

other places around this Province because it touched me personally in the last

couple of weeks to see what happened in my district with two gentlemen, one gone

and one -I would say he is going to make it now but that is all, just. If

anybody - and the other two gentlemen from Springdale, two young people, one

nineteen and one thirty, gone.

The hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West lunch time today -

two people, a man and his daughter gone just last week. We had another lady from

Clarenville I believe it was or out around the Clarenville area the other day,

all those are sad incidents, Mr. Speaker, and I say to the minister to get the

message out to his foreman to make sure that they are on the roads.

I travelled last Saturday from Corner Brook to Deer Lake - I

think it was last Saturday evening - and I think that the requirement now for a

foreman is to get out before the operators come out. The foreman is supposed to

be on the road and call out the operators, if there is any need, before the

required time, whether it is 4:00, 5:00 or 6:00 a.m. I think they are supposed

to be on the road and call the operators out before that.

So I would say to the minister to take the concerns of those

petitioners and my concerns to heart, Mr. Speaker, and make sure that everything

possible is done to make sure that the roads in this Province are safe for

everybody to drive on, not only the people who are working at Bull Arm but for

every resident in this Province.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Just a couple of brief comments, Mr. Speaker.

There is nobody in this Province, especially myself, who

understands the requirement and the need to have our highways safe in the

wintertime. Our climate changes as much sometimes as two, three and four times a

day, depending on the temperature, the sun, the ice conditions, and everything

else.

The hon. members opposite know, as well as all hon. members

on this side of the House, that the shift starts at 4:00 a.m. when the foreman

goes out. The trucks go out automatically at 5:00 a.m. They work until 1:30 p.m.

covering the highway every two hours, according to the road conditions, but the

key factor is that you cannot drive the same speed in the winter as you would

drive in the summer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Let me finish, now. The speed must be reduced

and adjusted according to the condition of the road.

They talked about the accident in Gander. That same morning

the Town Council of Gander was in my office for a meeting, and even before I

knew there had been a serious accident there, I asked the town council: You just

drove all the way from Gander, - seven councils in the one machine - `what are

the roads like coming in? The roads were reasonably good all the way from

Gander. Half-an-hour later I got the news that there was a serious accident, but

they had driven in that morning.

The one east of Roaches Line, I drove that very piece of road

twenty minutes before the accident. It was snowing. There was continuous

snowing. It took me twenty minutes longer to come into town than it normally

would in good conditions. The condition of the weather causes things to happen.

Now, about the people in Bull Arm, very simply, I have

already met with the people in Bull Arm. I agreed to send officials down to Bull

Arm and meet with the people down there to try to get an understanding of the

shift system. The officials have already been down there and we are trying to

work with the people in Bull Arm and to adjust our shifts to their shifts. That

is the intent, to see if we can work out some kind of a time

schedule that would

suit both parties.

I have already told them that. It was only a week ago that I

met with them, and now I find today that they sent a petition to the House of

Assembly saying: Why don't you do something? But if you are going to do it, you

might as well do it right or not do it at all.

We are on top of all the issues. We do the best job we can

with the snow clearing and the salting and the sanding on all of the roads, and

we caution people, all of us, to use common sense. Accidents will happen. Use

common sense in driving and drive according to the condition of the road.

Accidents will happen. You cannot have 100 per cent safety on our roads, but

working together we will do the...

I suggest to the hon. Member for Mount Pearl, he has opened

his mouth enough this week; he should keep it closed.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. WINDSOR: What was the cause of the accident you had,

road conditions or careless driving?

MR. EFFORD: The accident I had?

MR. WINDSOR: You had a week ago.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) here in the city.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think the minister has finished speaking. We are not into

questions and answers. I recognize the hon. the Member for Placentia on a

petition.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on a petition from the District of Placentia,

and I will read part of that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CAREEN: These people ask the House of Assembly to

accept the following prayer:

We, the undersigned, do hereby request the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations to immediately provide emergency funding to

generate desperately needed employment in our communities, as in duty bound your

petitioners will ever pray.

This petition was in a small convenience store for only two

or three days, and there are fifty odd names on it.

This is the fifth time since the House opened this session

that I have been up to initiate emergency work for people. I have had the

privilege of supporting other members over here, but only on two occasions have

I heard members from the opposite side jump up to talk about needs in their own

districts - the Member for Fogo and the Member for Twillingate. Don't tell me

that other members across don't have emergency situations in their own

districts. I can't believe it. This is Newfoundland. This is the Province. They

are from all over.

These people who have been up supporting and giving petitions

know full well what is going on in this Province. They have seen emergency

responses before when the situation wasn't as bad. With more money, with no

moratorium, there were grants. Why, even last year there was one for $6 million,

and this year, when things are worse, unemployment is higher, more people on

social services, a bunch of people ready to be thrown off TAGS, there is not one

red cent. There is something really radically wrong.

I've said it before, that we should not have to wait for

Ottawa. Lots of times in our past we've never had to wait for Ottawa. The

initiative was taken by (inaudible) people here, but it is not being done now.

To hell with Ottawa, let's do it ourselves. Whatever they come in with after the

fact will be gravy. We've all heard stories about parents looking after their

own youngsters before they look after themselves. I've heard a member this

morning say that this woman refused to get her own prescription filled so she

can put a bit of grub on the table. That is what one of the members over here

said he had heard, a story this morning, talking to a person.

It is tragic. We are supposed to be part of one of the best

countries in the world. I find it amazing that we can't reach out to help the

ones most in need of help. It is obvious that when it comes to giving, this

government stops at nothing to provide to people who need the most help. Where

is their thinking? Do people know? Do the members opposite? Are they in tune

with what is going on out in Newfoundland? Taxies here in St. John's, Jiffy

Cabs, coordinating with other groups to get coats for mom and dad so mom and dad

can supplement other things to their family. That is going on these weeks, and

things are much worse out in rural Newfoundland.

We are waiting for Ottawa. We are waiting for `the Ax,' we

are waiting for Lloyd. We can't afford to wait for Lloyd. It has to be Clyde.

No, my friends, we can't - tomorrow we will adjourn here and it will be our last

chance at a public forum in the people's House to raise the issues of what

people need.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: It is a not a funny matter out there, I say

to the Minister of Education and Training, and the Minister of Social Services

who knows better.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are funny. What you are saying

(inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I might be funny. I don't mind me. I don't

mind you making fun of me, but never make fun of the people who need help.

There are two types of government obviously.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CAREEN: Those people who look after the flock, and

those people who look after the fleece.

MR. SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.

MR. CAREEN: We are looking at those who look after the

fleece.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased today to

stand and support the petition put forward by my friend for Placentia. Once

again we have a petition from a group of people who are looking for some type of

emergency program this year. This is one of several petitions that members on

this side of the House have presented. It was very upsetting yesterday to hear

the Premier believe that people in this Province are not in dire need. He

touched on the word starving and he played that word starving to the media very

well, I should say, but I think that we have to look at things in the general

sense. We walk into the house in the evening and we are on the go all day and

you say: Oh my God -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: We agree, I say to the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation. He is another one of the clique who doesn't understand

what is going on in this Province, I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation.

When we walk into the house after being on the road all day

and we say: Oh my God, I'm starving, we don't mean we are falling down on our

hands and knees, but we mean we are hungry, Mr. Speaker. I say there are people

in this Province who are hungry. I gave a couple of examples. I have umpteen

examples that I can give to the Premier or any member of the Cabinet on that

side of the House, examples of where people are hungry in this Province. Many of

the examples were children going to school in this Province without the proper

clothing, and indeed without the proper food. If people think that is not

happening, there's something wrong. People think that is not happening in this

Province. In The Evening Telegram today: `Twenty-five per cent of the

children in this Province are living below the poverty line.'

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology had a news

story in the paper yesterday about growth in this Province. He used many

percentages, many numbers in reference to that growth, but what he didn't

mention was what I just quoted, that 25 per cent of the children in this

Province are living below the poverty line. he didn't mention that there was an

over 200 per cent increase in Social Services cases in the Province over the

past year. The Minister of ITT didn't mention that in his news release. He

didn't mention that over 50,000 people in this Province will be depending on

food banks or some type of help this Christmas to put food on the table. He

didn't mention that 3,000 to 6,000 people coming off TAGS program at the last of

December this year will be facing Social Services for the first time in their

lives. He didn't mention that, Mr. Speaker.

I can go on and on with the percentages of people who are

finding life difficult in this Province. We may have seen growth in our economy

in some industries in the Province, but we have seen what they call a jobless

growth. We have seen a growth where the rich are getting richer and the poor are

getting poorer. That is what we have seen in this Province over the past year.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. MANNING: Is it not true? I ask you then, where are

the jobs? Sure, we have industries that are growing but the profits are going

out of this Province into Ontario and Quebec, and god knows where, Mr. Speaker.

They are not going into the pockets of the people of this Province, and that is

the problem we have with this government. That is why people are hungry in this

Province. For the first time in their lives they are facing Social Services.

I welcome the petition of the people of Placentia. I welcome

the petitions of the people of all districts that have been put forward here in

the House of Assembly, because people are asking a question. People are asking

this government to come and realize the situation that lies, not only outside

St. John's, but also right here in St. John's and in Mount Pearl. People are

hurting in every part of this Province.

We are not saying this is the answer to all our problems. We

are not saying that, Mr. Speaker, but this is an emergency situation and it is

time for the government to do something on a stand-alone basis. We can't be

depending on Uncle Ottawa all the time to do something. We need something now,

Mr. Speaker. We need something for the people at this present time and I pray

that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations stands up in this House

tomorrow, the last day of the sitting of this House, and announces something for

the people of this Province. People are waiting with bated breath for that

minister to announce something, and what a welcome Christmas gift it would be

for many people in the district.

Mr. Speaker, I go back once again to the Premier's comments

yesterday about what is happening in this Province. As far as I am concerned,

the Premier is out of touch with what is going on. The Premier and a great many

of his colleagues on that side of the House, I allow, Mr. Speaker, never had to

worry about putting food on the table. They never had to worry about their

children going to school hungry because they always had full and plenty.

Well, I invited the Premier yesterday, but he didn't have the

guts to come with me out to my district and visit people who are suffering in

this Province. I say that he should stand up and he should see what is going on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that all of us

are interested in getting out of the House. Given the hour of the session so far

this afternoon, it is obvious it is in the interest of everybody that we get out

of this House as quickly as we can. I hope the House will not have to sit late

this evening, but to ensure that we can, if we so wish, perhaps I could begin by

moving that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

There will be a Late Show, of course, from 4:30 to 5:00 p.m.,

so we have only effectively an hour-and-a-half left. If there are no questions

given to the Speaker, then there will be no Late Show, but I ask Your Honour if

we could first of all address that motion, that the House not adjourn at 5:00

p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do

not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. today, carried.

Does the Member for Ferryland wish to speak?

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This side, in order to expedite business and the bills, are

willing to forego the Late Show, if that is in agreement with hon. members.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the Late Show

be foregone today, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: I thank my hon. friends; that will help to

move the matter forward.

Mr. Speaker, I had a word behind Your Honour's Chair with my

friend, the hon. the Member for Grand Bank, who is upstairs, I think, for a

moment, making some phone calls.

The proposal for the day is that we begin with Order 39, and

then we will do Orders 37, 36, 34 and 33.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, that's 39.

MR. ROBERTS: Order 39, which is a bill that stands in my

name, and then we will do 37, 36, 34 and 33.

Assuming we get through those before midnight, I would ask

that we go into Committee and deal with - we will not be dealing with Order 15,

but deal with as many as we can of the bills in Committee. The hope is, of

course, Mr. Speaker, that the House will come to the point tomorrow where we can

adjourn and His Honour, I understand is available tomorrow, in the morning up

until about noon, and then, I believe, His Honour has some commitments which he

made, you know, some time ago in the course of his viceregal duties, so we will

have to try - obviously, His Honour, will be available when the House needs him,

but we will have to try to accommodate ourselves as best we can.

With that said, Your Honour, I would ask that we call Bill

64, which is Order 39 and stands in my name.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Family

Law Act, The Reciprocal Enforcement Of Support Orders Act And The Support Orders

Enforcement Act", (Bill No. 64).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of these bills where the text to the

enactment is just about as short as the

long title, if you wish.

The explanatory notes really set out what this bill seeks to

achieve but I could say to the House that we have consulted with Chief Judge

Luther of the provincial court, and we, in this case, I, have met with Chief

Judge Luther and with one or two of his colleagues on the bench to discuss this

amendment, and I can assure the House that it is eminently acceptable to them.

I can also say to the House that this practice that this bill

seeks to sanction has been in effect for some time, particularly in Corner

Brook. Judge LeBlanc and several of the judges in Western Newfoundland have been

following this practice and particularly and specifically there has been no

objection taken by any member of the Law Society of Newfoundland, who could

arguably maintain that what has been going on may be - and I stress the words,

`may be' - a breach of the Law Society Act.

As the House knows, the Law Society Act confers a monopoly

for the practise of law upon members of the Law Society, that is the whole

purpose of it. The three sections are essentially the same, there is a little

difference in the wording between No.1 on the one hand and on the other hand,

Nos. 2 and 3, but in each case, what happens, is an official of my colleague,

the Minister of Social Services is being authorized to appear in court in

respect of applications, for support applications.

These are matters where people are receiving social

assistance and in the course of the evolution of the matter, an application is

made that in behalf of that person or by that person for support from a spouse -

almost always a husband, but not always - asking that spouse to contribute a

fair share towards the cost of maintaining the applicant and her - almost always

her, but not always - her children, the children of the marriage or of the

relationship; so that's all it really seeks to do, Mr. Speaker. It is very

straightforward and I hope the House will support it willingly and unanimously

but, in any event, I move second reading.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I support this bill. I think it is sensible to allow Social

Services personnel to appear in provincial court on behalf of social assistance

clients trying to get maintenance.

I want to speak briefly, however, about the inadequacy of

social assistance policy. Ironically, it is social assistance recipients who

have been hurt by the improved enforcement of court orders for family support.

It was, only with the establishment of the Department of Justice support

enforcement agency almost six years ago, in 1989, that court orders for family

support in this Province meant anything.

The support enforcement agency, in its first year of

operation, from May 1, of 1989 until the end of that fiscal year, collected

about $2.4 million in court ordered maintenance and child support. Year after

year since then, the amount collected has increased. In the second year of

operation, the amount was over $4 million, and a third year, over $6 million. In

this fiscal year, it is estimated that the agency will collect and forward to

beneficiaries of court orders, as the minister indicates, mostly mothers and

dependent children, over $10 million; however, when the agency was created - and

I was the minister when it was planned and when it started - social assistance

regulations permitted social assistance recipients getting child support to

benefit up to a maximum of $115 a month. Social assistance regulations up to

October of 1990 treated child support and maintenance as allowable income, the

same as income from a job, and that provided a net benefit to welfare recipients

getting maintenance, and that is as it should be. It also offered an incentive

to social assistance recipients to go to court and to try to get as much

maintenance as possible.

The Wells Administration, when the current Minister of Works

Services and Transportation had the Social Services portfolio, changed the

policy and made maintenance and child support non-allowable, thereby subtracting

any maintenance received dollar for dollar from the social assistance

entitlement. So sadly and ironically, the support enforcement agency not only

has not benefitted the people who need maintenance the most, namely, welfare

recipients, it has actually hurt them because Social Services and Justice have

not integrated their systems. There is a crack, and the poorest families in the

Province are falling between that crack.

If a single mother with three children is entitled, by a

court order, to $200 a month maintenance from the father of the children, and

under social assistance policy is entitled to $300 a month social assistance,

for a total of $500 a month, that woman has to budget very, very carefully. If

the money is due on the first of the month, $300 from Social Services, $200 from

the support enforcement agency, and the judgement debtor, the absent father,

fails to make the payment, or is late making the payment, the first of the month

comes and that woman doesn't get the $500 that she is expecting and that she had

budgeted for; she only get $300 from Social Services. She has to make phone

calls, and that is not often easy, to find out that the absent father has missed

his payment to the agency. Then she has to go to her social worker and satisfy

the social worker that the support money didn't arrive because it wasn't paid to

the agency. The worker then has to manually prepare a cheque for the missing

$200, so for the first week of the month, the woman is out money. Social

Services issues assistance cheques twice a month, but I am using a hypothetical,

simple example to illustrate my point.

The support enforcement agency, when it started, had a

sophisticated computer system. The Department of Social Services, in the years

since, I am told, has moved into the computer age and now has a computer system.

Why can't the two departments connect their computers so that when the support

enforcement agency misses a due payment from a judgement debtor, the Social

Services computer is alerted and automatically issues a cheque for the missing

money to the beneficiaries? And why can't the government restore the earlier

policy, treating maintenance and child support as allowable income? That gives a

meagre advantage to some of the poorest families in the Province, and it gives

an incentive for social assistance recipients to try to get as much maintenance

as possible.

Right now, and Legal Aid lawyers and social workers with

Social Services will tell you, it is expedient for a social assistance recipient

to take a path of least resistance. Social Services coerces applicants for

social assistance to go to court for a maintenance order, but the reward system

promotes only a token effort. If the social assistance recipient gets a court

order for one dollar, that individual and that family is better off than if the

court order is for $200. The incentive was taken away when maintenance was

categorized as non-allowable income.

So, Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, which formally

authorizes Social Services personnel to represent social assistance clients in

provincial court applications for maintenance. Legal Aid doesn't provide lawyers

for maintenance applications on a routine basis. I am told Legal Aid provides

legal assistance only when a maintenance application is contested. The

individual deserving child support, or the social assistance applicant who is

pressured, coerced and forced by Social Services to go to court, as it stands

now, has the burden of initiating the court application and going to court. If

it turns out that the party being requested to pay opposes or turns up

represented by a lawyer, then the applicant generally can get a Legal Aid

lawyer, but the current legal aid system is not satisfactory and that is

probably for good Legal Aid reasons because Legal Aid doesn't have a big enough

budget or enough staff to handle all the maintenance applications in addition to

all the other workload.

I do agree with authorizing the Social Services personnel to

do this court work on behalf of clients seeking maintenance, but at the same

time as I am supporting this bill, I am urging the government to make other

changes, specifically, number one, restoring the treatment of maintenance as

allowable income so that social assistance recipients who get maintenance, will

be better off, even if it is only $115 a month, which is the provision for

income from a job and was the provision for maintenance prior to October of

1990. One hundred and fifteen dollars a month is not very much to the Provincial

Government, which gets 50 per cent of it back from Ottawa anyway, but it is a

lot for a single mother with three children who is expected to get by on only

$500 a month.

Secondly, I urge the departments of Justice and Social

Services to integrate their computer systems so that social assistance

recipients, entitled to maintenance under court orders, don't end up worse off

because of the support enforcement agency. Sadly, that's what has happened over

the past few years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister speaks now he will

close the debate.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I take it that nobody else,

other than the lawyers, is interested in this particular piece of material, so I

will shortly move second reading after I make my speech.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to advise the House that there has

been another of the famous consultations behind the Chair and the government

will be asking the House to adjourn at 5:00 p.m. and come back at either 6:00

p.m. or 6:30 p.m., as suits members. I am really quite indifferent, whether we

come back at 6:30 p.m. or at 6:00 p.m., if it is more convenient for 6:30 p.m.,

then I am quite prepared to. But I just want to advise members of that and we

will sit this evening until we finish the work I have outlined, which shouldn't

take us long, but that is in the hands, of course, of the members of the House.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this

bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Family Law Act, The

Reciprocal Enforcement Of Support Orders Act And The Support Orders Enforcement

Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House

presently, by leave. (Bill No. 64)

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, would you please call Order 37,

Bill No. 61, which stands in the name of my friend, the Minister of Health.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Hospital Insurance Agreement Act, The Insurance Companies Act And The Medical

Care Insurance Act". (Bill No. 61)

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

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

The nuts and bolts, if you like, of this piece of

legislation, these amendments, were discussed somewhat yesterday in the House in

Question Period. I gave the information in answer to a question or questions

from the other side as to what this bill is about.

Very briefly, what it does, is it puts into place a levy

system on automobiles insured by insurers in the Province so that the Province,

in effect, can recover an amount equivalent to or greater than the amount that

we now recover from third party liability claims as a result of having to take

litigation on a case-by-case basis. The amendments and the levy system that we

are putting in place are consistent with what is in place in most other

jurisdictions including all of the Atlantic provinces. I guess, basically what

has happened over the years, by virtue of third party liability arising from

accidents, the Crown, the government, has had to establish the cases where they

wanted to seek recovery from insurance companies under third party liability.

They have had to initiate litigation and they have had to go through the normal

legal process of recovering amounts that were deemed to be appropriate.

What we have agreed to with the insurance companies through

their association, and what I might say they have readily agreed to as well, is

to put in place a levy system of - I think it is $11.61 cents exactly, per each

vehicle insured. This will return to the Crown an amount of money in excess of

what we have been averaging over the past two or three years. Also built into it

is an escalator clause to ensure that we will continue to receive at or above

what we would normally receive by virtue of having to go the litigation route.

This saves a bunch of time for the government, it saves a

whole bunch of time and paperwork for the insurance companies, it increases the

revenue that the government will achieve, as opposed to what it would normally

achieve through the old system, and there is no down side to it whatsoever. It

is a win-win situation, as I said yesterday, for government, it is a win-win

situation for the insurance companies. As a matter of fact, yesterday I did hear

by accident, Mr. Forgeron from the Atlantic Insurance Bureaus Association,

speaking to the piece of legislation and saying that it was something they were

very much in favour of. He also said that it would not increase insurance rates,

as far as he could see, for the people who have to buy automobile insurance in

the Province.

Having said that, I think that covers the salient points in

the amendments. The only down side in it is, I guess, people like my good

friend, the Member for St. John's East will no longer have that piece of legal

business out there as a possibility of work. The lawyers on Duckworth Street are

going to get less work because of the changes we are making. With the greatest

of respect and with all the sympathy that I can engender for that particular

group, I would have to say for everybody else this is win-win, and it is the

conventional and proper way to go. If there are any questions with respect to

it, I would be glad to answer them, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I asked some questions of the minister earlier this week

pertaining to some aspects of this, which I considered at the time a levy system

that would try to recoup - the minister indicated at the time it would try to

recoup the expenses that are being absorbed now, I understand, by our health

care system, which should be paid by the liability insurance in claims arising

from motor vehicle accidents.

I guess, overall, if it is going to eliminate, as the

minister said, the legal costs incurred, and it is my understanding - and I'm

not sure how much of that amount is absorbed by the system, but the minister did

indicate earlier - that $2.6 million is what we are talking about. I asked the

minister that previously, and he indicated that the levy, which I understand is

$11.61, if I remember correctly, will be added to each policy.

Maybe the minister can answer a little later, too, if all of

the court cases result in recovery. If there are cases where no established

liability occurs, and if they are remaining within the system now, and being

absorbed by the system itself, what is the percentage that we are recovering and

getting back to the system there, in value? Is the minister following my

question? I know it is hard to listen to two people at the one time.

I am wondering, of the $2.6 million recovered back through

the system, what percentage of that is of the total amount that is sought by our

health care system, by government, to get back? Is there $4 million and we

collect $2.6 million? I am just wondering, is there money still left in the

system that we are absorbing under our Medicare system? What is our recovery

rate through the court costs and so on? And, that being the case, too, if we are

going to transfer another little add-on onto insurance policies for consumers,

on top of what consumers could be paying by the Insurance Bureau of Canada

indicating the increased risk by not having motor vehicle inspections, another

$11.61 topped on because of our health care system, they are saying, should now

be paid by insurance companies and so on - I tell the minister, the consumers

are still paying that. Whichever way they want to cut it, it is still being paid

by the consumer, and there is no great saving to the consumers in this Province

- maybe in legal costs, possibly, depending. I would like to have some

indication, too, how extensive some of these are, and a little more information

when the minister has an opportunity to close debate on that, if he has those

figures, just for general information, to see whether the effort is well worth

it, whether that $2.6 million is the net amount -

AN HON. MEMBER: John Efford?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I don't mean Efford; I mean, `effort',

with a `t', not a `d'.

- whether it is worth it, and whether we are getting a

substantial return on the system, and if there is more money that could be

obtained as a result, Mr. Speaker.

I just make those points there for the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. the minister have leave to answer the questions

or is he closing the debate?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, we don't have any other speakers.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now, he will

close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I will take just a minute, Mr. Speaker,

and answer the questions that were posed by my colleague from the other side.

First of all, I want to point out again to him, and make it

abundantly clear for all who are listening, that this is not a premium that is

being added to insurance policies. This is a levy that is being assessed to the

insurance companies based on the number of vehicles that they insure. Mr.

Forgeron, as I just said a minute ago, himself, said yesterday on CBC News at

1:00 p.m., that this will not add anything to the cost of insurance, because it

is not a premium that is being passed along. It is a levy that is being assessed

to the insurance companies, and the insurance companies are glad to be able to

work in this fashion because it relieves them of all of the necessary

involvement of book work and lawyers and legal fees that they have to engage on

their side when we initiate a third-party claim, so I want that to be clear for

the record.

With respect to the $2.65 million that we are anticipating to

get in the first year, let me answer the question for the member in this sense

and put it in this context: In 1991 we had gross revenues of $1.6 million,

approximately, from these claims. It cost us $266,000 in legal fees to get them,

so we netted out $1.379 million. In 1992 there was $2.6 million in claims. It

cost us $437,000 in legal fees, so we ended up with $2.19 million - these are

round figures. In 1992-1993, $2.653 million was the gross revenue. It cost us,

again, $459,000 in legal fees to collect that, so we ended up with $2.1 million.

This system will give us

approximately $2.65 million in the first year with provision

for escalating rates in the future, depending on inflation and those factors. Of

that $2.6 million that we will get this year there will be no legal fees

involved. We will not have to engage lawyer services or get into litigation in

order to collect that. It is a situation where we will really probably pick up

an extra $500,000 or $600,000 the first year in real cash because we are getting

out of this business of having to go through lawyers, and on the other side the

insurance companies are saying it is going to save them time and money because

they do not have to engage lawyers to deal with the claims.

Now, as to the claims that may be in the system now. There

are some ongoing third party claims that are always on the go. We gave notice to

the insurance companies back in July that we were going this way and they have

agreed. Those claims will continue onto their normal conclusion, so there are a

few claims out there to be cleaned up.

I want to conclude by saying that this will not add any extra

new cost to the consumers, and it is again the way that all the other provinces,

or most of the other jurisdictions have gone.

Having said that I move second reading of the bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Hospital Insurance

Agreement Act, The Insurance Companies Act And The Medical Care Insurance Act",

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House now, by

leave. (Bill No. 61)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

My friend the Minister of Finance will now show us his

wizardry by asking the House to read Bill No. 58 a second time. It is Order 36,

Sir.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting

Reductions Of Pension Contributions By Employers In The Public Sector". (Bill

No. 58)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As you know second reading is debated in principle, and

essentially the principle of this bill is that we institute conditions already

agreed to in the collective bargaining process whereby there would be, for two

years, specific reductions in the employers contribution to the public service

pension plan. This bill simply allows government to do that.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We do not have any concerns with that. I think that is

something that has been agreed to and discussed previously. We fully understand

the intent and what the minister has accomplished. This has been reached through

agreement, so we endorse that, Mr. Speaker.

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

he closes debate.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Reductions Of Pension

Contributions By Employers In The Public Sector." read a second time, ordered

referred to a Committee of the Whole House now, by leave. (Bill No. 58)

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

MR. BAKER: Order 34, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material

Disposal Act". (Bill No. 34)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Waste

Material Disposal Act". (Bill No. 34)

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

MR. AYLWARD: This bill is basically a minor amendment to

the Waste Material Disposal Act. Garbage is a word that has value, and it is

becoming important in this Province to take care of it, and we are going to do

that. This bill basically amends two sections, one, it deals with the directions

by the court. It was found that it wasn't working very well when an offence was

committed, and the court was asked and directed to provide for taking care of

the matter. It will now be amended to provide for directions of the minister. It

is basically just a change of wording, and it is felt that will work much

better.

Secondly, Clause 2 of the bill will add to the act Subsection

24 (3) (1) to provide for court acceptance of a certificate of the registered

motor vehicles respecting the last registered owner of a motor vehicle. There

was some problem with that in the acceptability. In the court system it wasn't

clear as to the ownership question. This amendment will also deal with that

matter, Mr. Speaker. I would move second reading of the bill.

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

Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure to

stand in the House today and speak to Bill No. 34. Basically I can stand here

and agree with the minister and what he has to say in respect to this bill. It

is a minor bill and there is not much to it, really, but it will have

far-reaching effects with respect to the towns and the municipalities in this

Province. It will help the municipalities deal with offenders with respect to

the dumping of garbage on by-roads and side roads and that type of thing, and

with respect to the car wrecks also.

I think it will speed up the process with respect to getting

at offenders. At this point in time the process is pretty time-consuming. If a

person, say, goes to a side road down in Logy Bay or Torbay and dumps a load of

garbage, we've had occasion that we would actually - when I was mayor down there

- go pick through the garbage and get an address and go and give it to the

police out of the garbage. We would try and get those people charged.

We've had occasion where people came down from central St.

John's possibly to Robin Hood Bay on a Saturday, maybe at 12:05 when the dump

was closed, and they just continue on down to Red Cliff Road or somewhere like

that, dump the garbage, and go on. I remember a few years ago that in particular

Red Cliff Road itself was becoming a garbage dump. We as a town council

encouraged the junior forest wardens and that to come down and clean it up. I

was out myself up on Red Cliff Road on a Saturday picking the garbage up. We did

a good job. The town paid for the pick up of the garbage type of thing and to

bring it to Robin Hood Bay. Within weeks the same thing was happening again.

We certainly support this bill. As I said, I think when we

did make charges with the police to the individuals concerned on occasion it was

very long in getting to court, a lot of problems arising from that. Now that the

minister can have a say in that and where the garbage will be dumped and picked

up.

Subsection (3.1), the purpose of it is to address the car

wrecks in the Province. As we all know, drive around this Province - and it is

improving. The former Minister of Environment and Lands brought in regulations

with respect to the car wrecks in the Province. Then you ran into the problem of

who owns the vehicle, the last owner. The

section here will of course address

the last registered owner. I did have some concerns about that first when I

started thinking about it, but often times if a person sells a car it is the

responsibility of both individuals to have that car registered. If I sold a car

and I didn't send in that little form with my registration to have that car

registered in the other person's name, then I am probably just as guilty as the

person who would leave it as a car wreck, so it would probably help in that

situation also.

This bill too I think will help clean up those car wrecks and

put the responsibility and the cost maybe, if we get some regulations in place,

that if a town council or the government, whoever, is responsible for a certain

area decides to take away a number of cars and they could find out who was the

last registered owner, would they actually charge that individual for the tow

charge or the cleaning up of the area. That is something maybe that the minister

can address. Basically I'm asking who would pay for the tow away. Would there be

fines involved, other than over and above the cost of having the car towed away?

We know now we have businesses within the Province that come

in here from outside that go up and take cars and squat them around and take

them back to the mainland for disposal or what have you, for recycling I would

imagine. I probably shouldn't have brought that up because the minister is going

to get on that now with respect to the reciprocal agreements with the provinces,

sobeit. With respect to any bill that we can bring into this House that would

support our environment and clean up our environment, we could only support that

on this side of the House. I believe that the people have to accept

responsibility and if this is a way for the clean-up of our environment, if this

certainly is a way to accomplish that, then sobeit.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have a lot to say other than that. As I

said, it is a fairly short bill, Bill No. 34. With that I think I'm going to sit

down and let the minister, if no one else wishes to speak, address the couple of

concerns that I had with respect to the fines and the tow away cost. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister speaks now he will

close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

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

concerns of the member he has expressed. The tow away costs I'm not sure about.

I will do some checking on that and see, and get back to you on that. This will

make it easier to make sure that we can carry out what the intention of the act

is, this will help do that, and the first part will also allow for the minister

and the officials to ensure that a site is cleaned up properly and so on, so I

will do a little check on that, there is supposed to be flexibility on that, on

the fine side, there is supposed to be flexibility there because the fine was

fairly high in the beginning, it is fairly high and it is only one fine so there

is some flexibility supposed to be provided for (inaudible) so I will check on

that for you and we will get back to you, but I think it is improving the

present bill and it will help make more effective the clean-up of car wrecks and

other sites.

Mr. Speaker, with that said, I move second reading.

On motion, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act",

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House, now, by

leave.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we now come to the happy moment

when I can ask my friend the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to

introduce a bill, which I think has been before the House since June, and that

is "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act", which is Order 33, Bill 32.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public

Tender Act". (Bill No. 32).

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker,

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: I am going to be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I

don't want to be the cause of spoiling any member's Christmas.

Mr. Speaker, the Public Tender Act was brought in in 1987 in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and since that time we, as a

government, have not had the opportunity to review The Public Tender Act.

What this act does is very simple. It is to review the scope

of The Public Tender Act and take out any of the weaknesses in the act that will

ordinarily be brought in initially, it is like growing pains. You purchase

something and after using it for a while you know the weaknesses in it. Just a

couple of minor things I will mention and I am sure hon. members Opposite will

have a few comments. Anything $5,000 or more would have to go to public tender;

$5,000 or less you could get three prices.

In the new changes in the act, we now increase it to $7,500.

$30,000 or more would have to go through the public tender for the purchasing of

services. We have now reduced that to $25,000 instead of increasing - $30,000 or

more for purchase services would have to go to public tender, we have reduced

that, $25,000 or more so what we are doing now, over the experiences of the last

number of years, in trying to give everybody an equal and fair opportunity with

The Public Tender Act in the Province, we have found out some of the weaknesses

in this act, and basically this is what we are doing; tightening up and refining

the public tendering system to give the public a better opportunity in

purchasing and doing government's business.

There are quite a number of housekeeping changes there and I

am sure as hon. members make note of them and talk about them in a few minutes,

then I will respond to any questions the hon. members put forth.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He did have a change of heart. I will tell this hon. member

he has been visited by at least one ghost. He hasn't come all the way yet but he

is getting there.

Regarding Bill 32, like the minister said, it is tightening

up some loose ends. We know that over the years, $5,000 was years ago and will

be $7,500 now. And there is no sweat with that.

In this bill, too, you are talking about more legal

responsibility for the deputy ministers. Is that not right, Sir?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Yes, they will sign up because you, as a

minister, are politically responsible. The minister mentioned a couple of days

ago here that he is responsible - Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, Sir?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: A couple of days ago you mentioned about you

being responsible to state publicly what other departments are spending. This

piece of legislation is not going to do that either. It is only putting more

onus on the deputy ministers as well. The deputy ministers will be held legally

responsible if they sign such legislation, will they not?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Okay, but this one here puts the legal

responsibility on the deputy ministers. Thank you, Sir.

AN HON. MEMBER: It increases the amount.

MR. CAREEN: Yes, but that is an inflationary thing.

Most of what you see here is only housekeeping and, like I

said earlier, is only tightening up the strings.

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

Extern.

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

I read this bill, and I had a number of questions. I am going

to refer to them clause-by-clause if the minister wants to make note.

In the explanatory notes itself it says: "Subclause 3(4) of

the Bill would renumber subsection 4(3) of the Act as subsection 4(2)..." - and,

this is the thing "...would remove the requirement for the Lieutenant-Governor

in Council to exempt certain leases by regulation." I would like for you to

address that in your comments, and what the reasoning is for that.

In the bill itself, "Subsection 4(5) of the Act is repealed

and the following substituted:

(4) A lease for space that was originally publicly tendered

that contains a provision for a renewal option, a reduction of the area of

leased space or the renewal of the lease with a reduced area may be renewed with

the approval of Treasury Board..." - and this is

section (b) - "on terms more

favourable to the government funded body where, in the opinion of the head of

that government funded body those terms are consistent with the fair market

value for that leased space".

Now I have concerns with that because I think that is too

broad.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: In the bill itself,

section 3.(6) (4) (b),

page 8.

The

section there says, "(6) Subsection 4(5) of the Act is

repealed and the following substituted..." The problem I have was, in the

opinion of the head, that they would lease more space or renew a contract for

the lease of space and would, in the opinion of the head of that department, or

the deputy minister, whoever it might be, I have concerns with giving that much

authority to an individual.

Those are two points I would like for you to address.

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

MR. HARRIS: I want to make a couple of comments on the

act, but if the minister is going to answer questions -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: No, I am not trying to get the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation going, but I would, similar to the Member for

St. John's East Extern, like an explanation of some of the parts of this act

that seem to be major policy changes. Perhaps the minister can make note of

these questions and refer to them in his final remarks.

I realize that we are dealing here with a fairly volatile

situation, that we may end up in a big debate here if we don't watch our p's and

q's, but I sincerely have a few questions for the minister as to what is being

done here and why, and I would ask if he would deal with them in the manner in

which I am presenting them to him.

Clause 4 of the bill, in accordance with the explanatory

notes, now permits the change orders to public works that have been contracted,

to change it from the Treasury Board approval which is now required, to the

deputy minister and then it goes on to say that the deputy minister can delegate

that power to somebody else. So all of a sudden it is gone from the Treasury

Board - which is a fairly high political level of control of the public purse by

virtue of change orders -now all of a sudden it goes from the Treasury Board -

who I would assume, knowing the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board would

take a pretty careful look at these things - and all of a sudden it goes to the

deputy minister who can then delegate it, presumably, to anybody he wants. So my

concern here is what is happening? Are we going to be losing control over change

orders? Now I don't - and I am sure there may be a dozen or two dozen change

orders required in any contract and they may have no financial consequences,

they may have none. They may just be a change because there is a need for a

change and I am not suggesting that every minor change in a contract must go all

the way through that bureaucratic route. What I am concerned about is the change

orders that would result in increased costs.

I notice that there is another

section here in the act and we

have not really had a lot of time to analyze all this legislation but

section 6

of the act is being repealed and that presently allows contract increases of up

to 10 per cent of the original value of the contract to be allowed, that is

being removed. Now does that mean there can be no increases in the contract or

does that mean that the increases can now be more than 10 per cent? When I see

two of those things in combination there it appears at least, that it is

possible to go beyond 10 per cent of the contracted price -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Oh, I know. I know it has been deleted but if

you look at clause 6, the explanatory note says, "Clause 6 of the Bill would

amend

section 7 of the Act to allow the deputy minister to delegate the power to

approve change orders, extensions or increased cost." So what kind of costs are

we talking about here? Are we talking about more than 10 per cent now being

allowed because apparently the Treasury Board is now losing control over the

cost of a contract.

You have your public tendering process that takes place, a

tender is awarded on the basis of the lowest bidder presumably and then - after

the contract is awarded by the minister, contract entered into - all of a sudden

the deputy minister can delegate to somebody else within the department the

authority to increase the cost by virtue of change orders, extensions or

whatever and now it is out of control at the Treasury Board. To me, that does

not make sense and I think that that is a fair question. That is not an attempt

to get the minister or the minister's department but it is an attempt to

understand why is it that the Cabinet, i.e. through the Treasury Board who is

there to look after the public expenditure, is losing that power to approve

change orders and not even the minister, it is the deputy minister who can

delegate to somebody within the department the authority to increase - permit

cost increases. At least when it was there before you could not go beyond 10 per

cent. Now it seems that there is no limit at all, that the deputy minister can

delegate the power to increase the cost of public tender. So I think there is

something -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: It is now 5 per cent. Where is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: That is clause 6, is it?

MR. EFFORD: No, wait now. I was reading from the book

itself.

MR. HARRIS: I don't see that in the act. All I see is

that

section 6 of the act is repealed by clause 5 and clause 6 then says that

subsection 7(1) of the act is repealed and substituted by giving the power to

any official in the department that he or she may appoint and unless that is an

existing clause for existing

section 5 of the act -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The current legislation allows 5 per cent

increase, does it? If that is the case we can't go beyond the 5 per cent but you

don't have to go to Treasury Board. It can be done by a deputy minister's

delegate.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) no ministers or anybody around,

and there is a contract out there and you need a change order, the deputy

minister can do it in that time of the year because of the circumstances, to

give them the authority. Otherwise it would hang up a contract for months.

MR. HARRIS: But you can't go beyond 5 per cent.

MR. EFFORD: Not beyond 5 per cent.

MR. HARRIS: The other question that I had. The exemptions

that we have now - I know the minister gets ragged every now and then about

coming in with his big book of exemptions every fall because he has five or six

months of exemptions to come in. These are exemptions, and I have to agree, the

minister doesn't approve all these exemptions. He is required to report them,

though. It is his responsibility, it is in his department. Because we get them

in a big pile everybody looks through them. I look through them every now and

then. You always find a lot of these exemptions are for what appear to be

contracts that are - or that the requests appear to be written so that there is

only one person or only one source that you can get it from anyway. You see that

in the University. They are looking for a MacIntosh computer and they buy it

from one person because there is only one source, which is MacIntosh.

Does the minister think that is really sort of getting around

the public tendering act by instead of asking for a particular service - you

know, like a computer that can do certain things - they specify a particular

brand name or a particular type. The public tendering act is thereby avoided and

greater funds are expended. I wonder is the minister concerned about this and

does he see any way of doing it? Because these exemptions, they pile on, and

when you read through them you get the impression after awhile that somebody is

writing these purchase orders to meet their own personal desire to have a

particular brand of equipment or a particular type of activity.

Obviously there is a need for exemptions in certain

circumstances, but I also see in certain kinds of cases where for refits of

vessels, for example, things that could obviously be foreseen - an annual refit

- certain equipment is being bought and is being bought on an emergency basis,

even though it is quite obvious that there could have been some plan in place

that would have meant that these things could have been purchased. Is that

something that the minister has any control over, or does he only come in after

the fact and report to the House about this and take whatever lumps people are

going to give him for it? Is there any control system where the minister's

officials are watching these things and monitoring what is going on? Because I

see a number of things. They are not worth a question in the House because they

are not necessarily a big deal on each individual basis, but cumulatively they

can add up to a lot of money. Perhaps the minister can comment on that.

I have no concern about the change in fifteen to thirty days.

That is just a bureaucratic thing. But there seem to be a lot of examples of the

spirit of the public tendering act being avoided. I don't mean in a mega-way -

on the hospital contracts, now that is a major political issue - but in minor

ways, on a day-to-day basis, on an ongoing basis, the spirit of the public

tendering act seems to be being overlooked by certain departments and by some

agencies. I wonder if the minister in closing his remarks could comment on that.

Perhaps he could also tell us the effect of removing the

section - in clause 7, amends 8(1) by striking out the words "rejecting the

preferred bidder". It is my understanding that there are two circumstances under

which the reports have to be made to the House. One, when the preferred bidder

is not given the contract, and number two is when there has been no tender

called for specific reasons. I wonder what is the effect of that. Does that mean

we are only going to have one report now and that we are not going to have

any...? Because quite often you see in these reports, `No contracts were awarded

to other than the preferred bidder for this period by the government bodies

reported.' Now, are we going to no longer have reports about this? What is the

effect of that amendment removing the words, "rejecting the preferred bidder",

there? Thirdly, does the minister feel that there is some need to amend the

process involving overriding of the act whereby the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council now has the right to ignore the Public Tender Act where he feels it is

expedient to do so.

This is what happened, obviously, in the hospitals case - the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council decided that the act wasn't going to be followed.

The act says the Lieutenant-Governor in Council can do that, and this is where

we get into whether or not there is technical compliance with the act. Does the

minister feel that policy is a good one, to maintain the right of the

Lieutenant- Governor in Council to act in that manner, to override the Public

Tender Act for whatever reason it deems to be expedient?

Does the minister agree that is a proper thing or should that

be changed? My own view is that it would require very special circumstances for

the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to have the right to override the Public

Tender Act. It would have to be a very strong demonstration of a public interest

that would override the act on any particular occasion and I think the act

should be amended to reflect that. Because, even if the government doesn't lose

this case before the courts - and I don't know whether it will or not, that

depends on the judge - but even if government doesn't lose the case, it seems to

me to be wrong that government, if it wins the case, wins it by virtue of the

fact that government can override the act because it deems it expedient to do

so.

Lastly, and this a suggestion that I have to the minister,

which I make based on my understanding of how easy it might be for departments

to manipulate leases. If, for example, a particular department, whether it be

Social Services or any department, for say, office space in areas of

Newfoundland, because there are differences in properties - each property is

different, different quality, different areas, different levels of desirability

from time to time, different states of maintenance and repair, or different

quality of premises - would the minister consider looking at a process whereby,

instead of having just open tenders on space, where there is a variety of

space...let's say, for example, the Department of Social Services required

20,000 square feet, would the minister consider a process which would say that

the space be pre-approved - this is a proper quality - and have a two-round

bidding system whereby on the first round you are asked to become what is called

an approved bidder, so that the Department of Social Services, for example,

would go in and say, yes, this quality of space is sufficient for our needs, or

to say, yes, this space would be sufficient for our needs if you were prepared

to do, x,y, and z, to bring it up to standard. Then if you have four or five

qualified bidders, I say, then say, now we will accept your bids on price, so

that everybody is then on a level playing field and you don't have a situation

where there could be four or five different bids in but you are dealing with

different quality of space and it is open to the department afterwards, or open

to interference, not by this minister, but by any minister or by any government,

interference on the basis of alleged preferences of a particular space or a

certain space not being up to scratch.

If the minister follows what I am saying, this will be a

two-step approach, qualified bidders and a qualified quality of space, and then

an open competition on price so that you know that your space is okay, and if

you want to beat the price and give the government a better deal, then you could

do it without fear of being overlooked upon the basis of saying: Well, your

space is not good enough so we went to someone else.

Those are the four points I wanted to raise, Mr. Speaker,

because I think this area of public tendering is one that we all talk about, the

deficit, costs, government costs and everything else, this is an opportunity in

the Public Tender Act to ensure that the public is getting the lowest possible

price. And, obviously, any dollar saved by this government or any other

government is a dollar less to have to extract from people in taxes and a dollar

more that can be made available in other programs on a social side, or any other

side if government needs.

I ask these questions sincerely, Mr. Speaker, as part of my

remarks in second reading. I would appreciate the minister's response on them.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I just want a few words, Mr. Speaker.

I've listened with interest to the minister and the Members for Placentia and

St. John's East talk about Bill 32,

An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act. I

listened to the explanation of the minister, although the minister didn't say

too much in introducing the act. I would say he probably said more about Bill

No. 30. He talked more about Bill 30 but he didn't say anything about Bill 30. I

believe the minister is going through a probationary period over there by the

House Leaders.

MR. SULLIVAN: He will get his licence back after today, I

think.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, he will get this licence to

practice legislation back after today. I think he got the sticker on the

legislative licence plate. He has been pulled over by the House Leaders over

there and a sticker applied to his legislative licence plate.

MR. SULLIVAN: Twenty-four hour suspension.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation was suspended for twenty-four hours from getting to his feet.

Knowing the Government House Leader, I would say that he had to pay the

Government House Leader $100 to be allowed to get back on his feet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I said, knowing the Government House

Leader, and knowing that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation was

suspended from participating in the House for twenty-four hours, had the sticker

applied to his legislative licence plate - knowing the Government House Leader,

he has charged the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation $100 for

permission to get back on his feet, I say to you now.

MR. SULLIVAN: Plus interest.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Plus interest. We know the Government

House Leader knows a lot about charging interest.

MR. SULLIVAN: He knows about it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He has the bucket now. He has his

garbage can put right out in the middle of the hall over there. The minister is

about ready now, to drive his two feet right down into the garbage container. He

is going to recycle whatever is in it now in about thirty seconds.

I want to say to the minister,

An Act To Amend The Public

Tender Act - there is a lot of interest in the Province these days, Mr. Speaker,

about the Public Tender Act and about the actions of this government when it

comes to public tendering, or lack of action, I suppose you could say, lack of

public tendering. The minister walks in now almost every week with a big armful

of those documents, exceptions to the Public Tender Act -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) as the Tories had.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Tories (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I say to the minister, he holds the

record for exceptions to the Public Tender Act, this minister. Piles booklets on

top of booklets of exceptions to the Public Tender Act. When you go through

them, as some of the members have done - and hear the Member for Baie Verte -

White Bay talk about the combine harvester over there. Can you imagine a man to

go and make an exception to the Public Tender Act so he could go out in his

district and get up on a combine harvester and get his picture taken.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did he get up on it?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He had a ladder.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, they hired a forklift.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They hired a forklift to get him up on

the combine harvester so he could wave his arms over the district.

AN HON. MEMBER: It can also be used as a golf cart.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A what?

AN HON. MEMBER: A golf cart.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A golf cart? I plan to play golf this

coming summer down in Frenchman's Cove, but I hope in the name of god I don't go

out on the golf course and see him coming with the combine harvester, I say to

him. I hope, on the Frenchman's Cove golf course, that is not what they do the

greens with, the combine harvester, I say to the minister. But it's a bit of a

rough game. You would need the chipping wedge all the time. I've heard tell of

it all.

Then when you look into the screech-in certificates, was it?

Screech-in certificates - then, you had to go off to the mainland and get them.

The Premier banned screech-ins. Then you have the Newfoundland Liquor

Corporation going to the mainland getting how much, $5,000 for screech-in

certificates, exceptions to the Public Tender Act? No one in Newfoundland could

make up the certificates for the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Tourism, look.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Minister of Tourism, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Screech-ins.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Screech-ins; had to go to the Mainland

to get screech-in certificates done, I say to the minister, exceptions to the

Public Tender Act, and the minister stands up here today like he is sincere

about improving the Public Tender Act. How can you take this minister seriously,

with what he has done in the last three or four weeks? My god, I think we should

shut the House down tomorrow because if this minister gets another week, I don't

know...I suppose we will be able to get home - or we will have to get a dog team

or something. He will be out there with the stickers now, I suppose, before you

get off the parking lot tomorrow. Someone said he was out there last night going

around with a night-light, going out with a light, looking around, getting

licence plate numbers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Burin Peninsula (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Put what down on the Burin Peninsula?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, why don't you saw us off at

Goobies and let us drift over with St. Pierre?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We would save the boat fares over.

Imagine what a booming economy we would have!

AN HON. MEMBER: It would save a lot of gas.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It would save a lot of gas; government

would lose a lot of tax in gas, because they do pay gas on the tax to get over

and back, I suppose, do they?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, tax on the gas.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No tax on the gas. No gas on the tax, I

said.

What you have to remember is that people go to St. Pierre to

burn gas to get the gas - get gassed.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think they are all aghast.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There are some very serious concerns.

When you look at the Trans City situation now that is before the courts, a civil

matter here, I say to the minister, and for the minister to stand up then and

expect us to take him seriously on this matter about improving the Public Tender

Act when there has never, in our history, been more exceptions to the Public

Tender Act than since this minister has been in that office - never, never,

never, getting worse by the month.

MS. VERGE: The fox in charge of the henhouse.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: As my colleague, the Member for Humber

East says, putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The fox will be in charge of the

henhouse.

And then, the Trans City scandal. He snarled up in that, too,

for sure. He snarled up in that somehow, this minister. He has his way of

getting involved in - anything that is a bit cloudy, he is in the middle of it

somehow, this minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I don't care if the minister talks

about pickles or vinegar or Bev's special dip or whatever. He is getting out the

pickle book now, he is going to get up, or if he gets out the liquor book, or if

he gets the book now with the motor vehicle inspections in it, or the .05, the

portable breathalyser, or the stickers that he is going to have put on the

licence plates when you are suspended for twenty-four hours, I couldn't care

less.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) picture.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: His picture will be everywhere. I would

say now when the inspectors pull you over, the first thing they are going to

flash is the badge with the minister's picture on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am stopping you by order of the hon.

John Efford.

MR. EFFORD: It would be some pleasure for me to stop

every Tory in the Province.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There you go, every Tory - that's his

problem. I tell you what the minister should do: Why don't you hire Tories to be

the inspectors?

MR. EFFORD: Some chance!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Some chance!

AN HON. MEMBER: You would need more than two or three

inspectors.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You would need more than two or three

inspectors, that is true; I agree. But, I mean, the minister - what has he done?

I would say even Purity Factories up there who turn out the syrup are worried

about the minister. The next thing he will be doing is testing the syrup at

Purity Factories. What is that minister up to? The minister can't be in his

place day after day and do what he is trying to do with the people of this

Province. He has to be taken to task for it.

MR. TOBIN: Who is going to do that?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We are. We are not going to let him come

here and ramrod things through and impose hardship with things he hasn't thought

out. Someone down in the department for twenty-five years has been trying to get

it up for twenty or twenty-five years, and what minister do they get to bring it

in here? This minister, that is who is bringing all of this in here, never

thought it out and I am so surprised that this minister - he swallows

everything. He just swallows it down when they bring it up to him, `Minister

this is a good idea, a good bill.' `Yes, give it to me. Is there any press in

this?' That is all, any press in this?

AN HON. MEMBER: Crocodile tears.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The same as the old - god he is good

with the crocodile tears, isn't he something? But the last couple of days -he

has not been too frisky over there since he had the twenty-four hour suspension.

I must commend the acting House Leader yesterday, the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology with advice from the Minister of Education and Training, he

is acting in the capacity of advisor.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Push what? I am not pushing anything, I

say to the minister. What is he saying, I am trying to push -

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to go home for Christmas?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I am going to go home for

Christmas. I tell the minister, I am going home for Christmas and I am going

home tomorrow. Well I should not say that, I might not because I might not be

able to get home but not because this place is open - not because this place is

not closed. I might not be able to get home, I might need my skates and I can't

skate that far.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman has been skating on thin

ice for many years (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: And he has never gone through it yet.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I have to be the first to admit, I

have skated on some pretty thin ice but I have always gotten across the pond,

managed to get across.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I have skated on some pretty thin

ice, no doubt about that, I say to the minister.

The other day, I want to tell the minister, last Sunday I

left home, last Sunday afternoon I heard the forecast and I said to my wife I

really need to be in St. John's for the morning. So I said I am going to leave

early to try and beat the storm. It started to snow just as I left Fortune and

from the time I left Marystown to St. John's it snowed pretty heavily. It really

did, it got tricky, it got - my wife was with me. No, I am serious now, I am

having a bit of fun. Do you know where I saw the first bit of equipment? Where

would you think? On the divided highway. No, I am serious, that is where I saw

my first piece of equipment. I saw seven to ten pieces from there until I got

into the city.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is good is it, the minister says? See

that is the problem, `it is good.' It was good from there in.

MR. TOBIN: No, no, you missed what he said. You said, `Do

you know where I saw the first piece of equipment?' He said Roaches Line.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, of course, I know the minister -

no, I did not want to say that to the minster. With all the controversy over the

last couple of weeks on our highways I just wanted to tell that story to the

minister not in jest or to be light. I want to tell you because it is a true

story and if I was not on the highway myself I wouldn't know it, Mr. Speaker.

The attitude, everything is attitude. It doesn't matter

because it is on the Burin Peninsula and my colleague and I represent the Burin

Peninsula. That is fine that we got to slip our way in, up and down the

peninsula, that is the way he thinks but, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted a few

comments on the Public Tender Act and say to the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They don't listen, they don't care about

public tendering. They don't believe in public tendering on that side. They

believe in manipulation and proposals, unsolicited proposals for work, to

construct facilities, that is what this government believes in, unsolicited

proposals. Walk in, make a proposal and the first thing the minister would ask -

what do you think the first question the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation would ask if you walked into his office with a proposal for some

capital construction or some facility? What do you think the first question this

minister would ask you? Would he ask, have you lost your license in the last six

months, twelve months? How many times have you been suspended for twenty-four

hours? How many hundred dollars have we got out of your pocket? Would he ask you

that?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he would say are you a Tory?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Would he say, have you got your car

inspected? Have you been over .05 in the last twelve months? Will that minister

ask you that, if you walked into his office? What do you think he would ask you?

He would not say how many tickets do you sell to the $500 dinner? Would he ask

you that? Who did you support in the last election and how much did you donate

to the Liberal Party? That is what this minister would ask, I say to him.

MR. EFFORD: Stand up and be counted.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Stand up and be counted. My colleagues

seem like they want me to sit down. So I ask the minister - windbag they call me

now, windbag.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I will ask the Government House

Leader, don't get confused with me and him. My colleagues don't call me anything

worst than windbag -

AN HON. MEMBER: You ar