December

21, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 81

The House met at 10:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Health.

Your department's drug subsidization program has skyrocketed

from an expenditure of $27.8 million in '93 - '94 to $35.5 million last year and

a projected $38.4 million this year, a $10.6 million or 38 per cent increase in

two years. Now since 1988 the cost of brand name drugs has increased by 93 per

cent and the index, the consumer cost index, by only 23 per cent in that period.

I ask the minister, will he tell this House if that 38 per

cent increase in two years, is due to more people availing of the services or

higher prices for drugs or what the combination of those two may be?

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

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

I can further inform the hon. member and for the benefit of

the House as well, that in fact, the last figures I saw, we are looking at about

a $54 million expenditure in drugs this year. That is broken down roughly into

two-thirds for the seniors program and one-third for social service recipients,

who are actually paid out of the Department of Health budget although they are

not seniors.

The answer to his question really is both. The resulting

increase in the cost of drugs is because there is a greater uptake on the

seniors program and also because of course, the increased costs in the

ingredients that are used in drugs; because we only pay the ingredient cost, Mr.

Speaker. The individual has to pay the dispensing fee.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was referring to your departmental drug subsidization

program costs that are projected in your budget.

Will the minister confirm if a departmental committee is

looking at this, and is your department considering limiting access to seniors

with low incomes and those people who are receiving the guaranteed income

supplement?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: No, Mr. Speaker.

We have nothing under contemplation that is specific toward

the drug program at the moment. Matters with respect to budgetary decisions on

all government programs, as well as the institutional sector are taken in the

normal course of budgetary decisions.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Residents of nursing homes require a considerable amount of

drugs and many of these qualify for subsidy under your department's program.

I ask the minister if he will inform this House how such

drugs are purchased and is there a competitive process?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: For the most part, the purchasing of

products, the consumables, drugs and that sort of thing in the institutional

sector are co-ordinated through the NHNHA. That is the organization that of

course represents the long-term care sector and the institutional sector. The

private, personal care homes basically are individual boarding houses, if you

like, or individual operations. In those settings individuals get drugs

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: In nursing homes? Nursing homes would be

handled substantially, as far as I know, along the lines of how drugs are

purchased for other institutions. I gather you are talking about drugs that are

consumed in the nursing homes by individuals. If that is the case, these people

get their drugs as anybody else in the community gets them, I would think. If

there are separate arrangements or special arrangements with certain pharmacies

or suppliers, then that would be a different situation.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know he has the

flu and he is under medication but I'm not sure if he mistook - the question I

asked: Residents in nursing homes who have individual prescriptions filled, I

understand, are done through a system and a process. I ask the minister if all

of those prescriptions by individuals that get subsidy under his program, how

are they filled, and what process, and is that open for a competitive process?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member

is 50 per cent accurate this morning and that is a bit of a record for him. I am

under the flu but I'm not under medication. I have a clear head, I have a clear

heart and a clear mind, and I'm otherwise functioning in as normal a capacity as

I ever had.

To the question that he put, rather than give him piecemeal

information what I will do is undertake to find out exactly and provide to him

the information as to how drugs are purchased on behalf of the people who are

long-term care residents of nursing homes.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is

to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. The Year of the Arts

proposal for the Cabot celebrations was $3.4 million, of which $1.2 million the

Arts Council asked the Province to deliver on. The individuals and groups in the

arts said they would raise $1.2 million and the rest they asked the government

to deliver on, they will make up the balance. I'm asking this minister: Does he

really think the Year of the Arts can properly proceed with the $500,000 his

department has stated they will receive?

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm delighted

actually that the hon. Member for Placentia and the critic asked this particular

question. I hope that he has been covering and following the news about the

particular series of events.

In the last few days there has been some extensive media

coverage through CBC Radio and other avenues. I know this is an issue that is of

very great concern, Mr. Speaker, to the arts community at this point in time. I

think what we have been trying to explain publicly through a morning show

appearance yesterday morning and also on Cross Talk yesterday afternoon

in considerable depth, is that there were a series and level of expectation

raised with respect to the Cabot Corporation and its overtures to the arts

community in developing a plan, Mr. Speaker, for a Year of the Arts as a

significant part of the celebrations in 1997.

It is very understandable, at this point in time, that the

representatives of the arts community that involved themselves very heavily in

that planning process in trying to put together a proposal that they are

expressing, quite understandably, some frustration and disappointment at the

fact that the level of money that the government has decided that we can put

forward for that particular part of the exercise in 1997, will not come anywhere

close, Mr. Speaker, to meeting the expectations and the needs that were outlined

in the plan presented to the Cabot Corporation. We are going to meet, Mr.

Speaker, with -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are going to meet with

representatives of the arts council early in the new year and try and find out

from them what the best level of activity is that they can support with the

amount of money that is available to them being (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador

Arts Council proposal was about home grown entertainment that would promote the

talent and culture of this Province. Their activities were planned to cover the

whole years events in 1997. The Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation

plans to spend $625,000 on festival 500 which is bringing in entertainment from

outside the Province and which will only cover a fraction of the year's

entertainment, seems out of whack. I know it is disappointing to our own arts

council but I would like to ask the minister how his department is going to make

up for this gross discrepancy?

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure I

really understood the last part of the question but I did want to take the

opportunity to respond in reference to the choral festival. I think the hon.

member should know, Mr. Speaker, and it is worthwhile for everybody in the

Province to know that when you take another event that is going to be supported

by the government through this exercise, in the range of just over $600,000,

being the choral festival, that it is not just a matter of people coming from

inside or outside the Province.

That festival, Mr. Speaker, which we have been trying to find

the right opportunity to organize for almost a decade in the Province, will

feature choirs that have an international reputation - from Newfoundland,

because every time that Newfoundland choirs have competed in international

competitions, they have been rated very highly, and it is an area where we have

been granted accolades around the world.

There are going to be sixteen choirs from the Province

participating in that, along with eight Canadian choirs of some renown and eight

international choirs. I do not believe that the representatives of the Arts

communities are really trying to pit one event against the other. I think the

real sense is that most people are very pleased that the opportunity to go ahead

with a choral festival of some significance, which hopefully will be repeated

annually after that as a major event in the Province to attract choirs and

visitors on an ongoing basis, will be a success.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: The disappointment is with the fact that the

other -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister is now making a speech.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia, on a

supplementary.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I saw the lips move but I didn't hear anything come out of

them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I hope the

choral groups are more in harmony than he is with the Arts Council and other

groups in this Province.

Last June - June 16, the Premier and Minister Tobin announced

an Economic Renewal program of $100 million over a five-year period, cost-shared

federally and provincially. The items covered were aquaculture, tourism and

information technologies. I ask the minister: would they be entertaining the use

of some of these monies for Cabot 1997 celebrations, letting things go down the

tube, and having the Arts Council be the weekend of the Arts 97 instead of the

Year Arts 97?

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This being a very serious issue, I think it deserves to be

treated as such in the sense that the economic renewal agreement that the hon.

member references will likely be signed sometime later in this fiscal year - we

fully expect, and we certainly hope so. The Premier, in leading the discussions

on behalf of the Province, is trying to finalize that agreement with the Federal

Government at this point in time. In the contemplation of it, there is an

allocation that we have looked at from the very beginning that will be put aside

for some things related to the celebrations in 1997; but, in the context of that

renewal agreement, there has not been any contemplation that there will be money

set aside for arts development, or anything of that nature, as part of that

economic renewal agreement. The references to the Cabot 500 celebrations in that

year are for providing necessary infrastructure in different locations

throughout the Province, to accommodate other events that are already definitely

going to occur and will need some physical improvements in different parts of

the Province to allow them to be presented in the different communities of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

The issue itself, that the first question related to, is a

very serious one, and we will be meeting with representatives of the Arts

Council very early in the new year to try to find out that really what we have

is a circumstance where a certain level of expectation was created, but I think

now we will be able to get back to a point in time where we understand that the

$500,000, rather than being an insignificant amount, while not sufficient to

fulfil the plans that were outlined and developed, it will be a significant

boost to the arts community and arts development in the Province in that year,

along with other regular funding.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Social Services.

One of the most important aspects of social services in our

Province is that of children's care. One of the most important jobs, I believe,

is that of a child protection worker. It has come to my attention that in recent

cuts to the department, the minister has decided to lay off some of the child

protection workers. I would ask the minister to confirm this, and I ask her also

to confirm how many cases child protection workers are working on in her

department at the present time.

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

MS YOUNG: To the first question, the answer is no, Mr.

Speaker, and to the second question, that varies from day to day, and right at

this particular moment I just could not tell him how many cases each social

worker is working on. The last figure I heard from the child protection unit

was, I think, roughly about thirty per social worker.

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

Capes, on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been informed that two child protection workers'

positions were redundant and were not filled. Eighty cases that those two child

protection workers in the department. I would like to ask the minister: Is it

not true that these eighty cases have been spread out over the two other

workers? I ask the minister: Are there any plans to put a cap on how many cases

each child protection worker would have to deal with?

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

MS YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, with regard to putting a cap on,

while it might sound like a wonderful idea, it is not really the right thing to

do. Because some of the cases are very complex and may take a number of hours to

deal with. However, there may be some cases that are looked at, they are

unfounded, allegations of sexual abuse or any kind of abuse to the child.

Therefore, they go unfounded and it does not take as much time as some of the

more complex cases that we deal with on an ongoing basis.

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

Capes, on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, it has also come to my

attention that there has been a 100 per cent turnaround in child protection

workers in the child protection unit of Social Services over the past year or

so, a 100 per cent turnaround due to the anxiety and frustration that these

people have to work in on a daily basis. I would like to ask the minister: Would

she confirm this, and would she find dollars to put some extra child protection

workers in place in this Province to help the children of this Province?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to the questions that the member has put forward,

there are a number of people who leave Social Services to move into other areas

of work. With regard to the child welfare social workers, we are finding that

people move out from that area for a multitude of reasons. Some may, indeed, be

stress-related; however, there is maternity leave, there are injuries, there is

sick leave, there are people moving to other areas of work. It is an ongoing,

continuous, I guess, change in some cases. These are certainly out of our

control. I mean, we can't control pregnancies, we can't control injuries, and

there are a number of things that we can't control. People do move on to other

positions.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs. Since the last enactment of the municipalities act in

1979 there has been, of course, talk in the last couple of years of the new act

being brought before the House. I ask the minister if it is his intention to

introduce the new municipalities act in the Spring session.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: No, Mr. Speaker, not in the Spring session. The

act is finished. It is now being printed and being reviewed by the committee,

which includes the Federation of Municipalities and the administrators. There

are a few little tidying up matters that we have to include in it. I am sure the

hon. member understands that with that particular act, every day something is

changing. We are trying to keep ahead of everything. We are hoping that the date

the committee has set right now would be the Fall of next year rather than the

Spring.

With a bill of that size, I would think the Government House

Leader would prefer to deal with that in legislation in the Fall rather than the

Spring sitting, because most of the time of the Spring sitting is taken up with

the provincial Budget, so it would be next Fall.

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

Kenmount, on a supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister, and reflecting on the issues that arise

from the Tock case which I questioned him on a few weeks ago, municipalities are

finding themselves in a very awkward position. I know of one case where a

municipality is being sued because they put salt on the roads and polluted

wells, and also, the same municipality, because they didn't put salt on the

roads, is being sued by a driver who had an accident.

Will the new act address those issues of liability where

municipalities find themselves in an absolutely no-win situation?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that a

number of situations similar to the one the hon. member mentioned will be

addressed in the new act. In fact, I think it was because a number of cases

actually went to court and decisions were rendered; it was probably back some

two or three years ago, the reason why we implemented the idea of changing the

whole act, and doing it as quickly as possible. Another one, in particular, that

we are dealing with from a justice point of view, is the Wabana situation and

the court case out there.

The member is absolutely correct, Mr. Speaker, when he says

that, yes, there will be a number of those inadequacies, for want of a better

word, addressed in the new act, and I am hoping that the act will make things a

lot clearer and provide municipalities around this Province with protection, as

it relates to instances like snow clearing, for example, water and sewer

block-up, volunteer fire departments and other agencies of municipalities. I am

hoping that this new act will clear up a number of these adequacies.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the minister responsible for Fisheries,

Food and Agriculture.

A couple years ago, there was a commission set up, headed by

Mr. Scott Simmons, looking into the areas, the land-development areas so-called,

around the St. John's urban area, and that pertains specifically to the area in

and around the Goulds - most of the land was in around the Goulds area.

That report was given to the minister, as I said, a couple

years ago. I think there are something like forty-seven to forty-nine

recommendations made on that particular report pertaining to this area. Could

the minister tell the House, if it is true that there were about forty-eight or

forty-nine recommendations, how many of those recommendations were dealt with

and instituted?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, the report was presented to my predecessor on the

issue of - land consolidation, actually, is what you are referring to, in the

Goulds area. There were some forty-five, forty-six recommendations. I cannot

tell you how many have been acted upon -I certainly can report that later; I

know some of them have been, but as to the specific number, I can't really give

you that right now.

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

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I can tell the minister there are approximately

twenty-three to twenty-four of the recommendations implemented but, at the same

time, the minister had reservations about some of the other recommendations not

being implemented.

Could the minister confirm to the House that there was an

alternate report given to the minister to deal with the remaining

recommendations with which his department had some concerns?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The report that the hon. member is referring to certainly was

not presented to the current minister. There were some recommendations that

presented difficulties and there were further suggestions as to how these

difficulties could be dealt with in the future. That has been done up to this

point but the recommendations are being acted on in accordance with the report

that was provided to the minister of the day.

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

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, my second supplementary to the

minister asked if there was an alternate report given to him pertaining to the

other recommendations. He did not really answer that, `yes' or `no' - all I

require is a yes or no. He can do that on the next one. Mr. Speaker, these land

consolidation funds, only pertaining to the Avalon area, mainly in and around

the Goulds - could the minister give the House a list of names, especially in

the last four or five years, of the people who avail of this particular land

consolidation scheme and the total dollars that were paid out to individuals?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If it is within my right to do so, I will certainly endeavour

to provide the information you are asking for.

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

West.

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

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

It is probably a poor time to ask, seeing it is

Christmastime, when we are thinking about Santa Claus and all that. I would like

to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, how much money did he pay to Bill Hogan for

the study and when is he tabling the report?

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

Labour Relations

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

Let me say to the hon. member that government is the largest

employer in the Province. When we were fortunate enough to obtain the services

of Mr. Hogan -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: We are dealing with a very serious problem,

from a standpoint of Occupational Health and Safety, within the biggest employer

in the Province. We had to put together, of course, a whole structure relating

to lost control and claims management, etcetera.

Now, Mr. Hogan's twenty-seven years in Occupational Health

and Safety, I would suggest to hon. members, was crucial, and we were very

fortunate to have that expertise. Mr. Hogan put in place committee structures

throughout all the departments of government, Crown corporations of government,

organized the committees and organized details related to them.

One of the most important things, I say to the member, and we

should remember this, is that government must pay attention to the area of

claims management. Mr. Hogan brought a new approach to government on dealing

with claims management. He did an exceptionally good job. We thank Mr. Hogan for

the two years that he worked on behalf of and with government. I can say to the

member honestly, that government now, through Treasury Board and other

departments, are starting to reap. I say not only are we protecting our

employees but we are now dealing with the compensable problems that we are

having and we have Mr. Hogan to thank for it.

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

West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I never questioned the fact that

Mr. Hogan made a big contribution to government. I did not question that at all,

and I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Hogan, in comparison to the minister,

knows twice as much about Occupational Health and Safety than the minister does

- no doubt about that either. But the question I asked the minister is: For how

long was he on contract, how much money was he paid, and are you going to table

a copy of his report?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Hogan was on contract for two full years.

The cost was $150,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: What!

MR. MURPHY: We can now do an evaluation and show clearly,

I say to the member, that we have saved well in excess of what Mr. Hogan cost

us; I can assure you of that. I totally assure the member of that.

As I said, in all good, sound, solid prevention programs, it

was money well spent, I say to the member, ten times over.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Finance.

Back in April, when the 1995 Budget was presented, government

changed the way of tax exemptions for self-employed fishermen. Under the new way

of doing business, the fishermen pay taxes and then remit their invoice to the

provincial sales tax office for a PST refund. I would like to ask the minister

if this system is really working.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It probably is. I have not heard any complaints about it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, on

a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Is he aware of the fact that many

fishermen now purchasing fishing gear are doing so outside the Province? They

place their order one day and have it delivered the next day, thus not paying

any provincial sales tax here in the Province whatsoever - another instance of

government changing something which worked at one time and is now taking

business away from local businesses here in our communities. Is the minister

aware of that?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure one thing has anything to do with the other.

The fact that government changed its system had nothing to do with people

purchasing outside the Province; that has always been a factor in our provincial

economy. People know, or should know, that even if you purchase outside the

Province you are obligated to remit the provincial sales tax, in any event. To

that end, we have auditors who travel to other provinces, and the provinces have

an arrangement whereby if they know a purchase is made in that Province they

supply us with the information. We also ascertain it, and we then advise the

people who purchase outside the Province of their liability. If people fail to

do it we charge penalties and interest on it, so we have a regime in place to

catch that. It is not foolproof, as is any tax scheme, and I am not aware that

there is a significant problem. If it is, I would like to learn more about it.

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

Petitions

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in the last sitting of the House before

Christmas to present a petition on behalf of residents of my district who are

once again finding themselves, as they head into the Christmas holidays, without

needed dollars to put them through. The prayer and the purpose of the petition

is for people who are seeking some type of employment, desperately needed

employment. The prayer of the petition is as follows. `To the hon. House of

Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland, in Parliament assembled, the petition

of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador asks

for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer: We the undersigned

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.'

Mr. Speaker, this is one of many petitions I have presented

here on behalf of the constituents of St. Mary's - The Capes. Because of the

crisis with the shutdown in our Province of our main resource, the fishery, many

people find themselves left out in the cold. I rose here on several occasions to

bring the concerns of these people forward and I do so again through this

petition today. In our community we have many people who were indirectly working

because of the fishery. We had people who were working as baby-sitters, people

working in the local stores and in restaurants, the young fellows who were on

the wharf cutting out cod tongues to sell and make money during the summer

months, and because of the shutdown in the fishery we have lost all that. We

have lost all the opportunities for those indirect jobs, Mr. Speaker.

Those are the people who have signed these petitions. They

are not the people who are on the TAGS program, or not the people who have found

work somewhere else. The people here are people who indirectly have lost their

source of income because of the shutdown in the fishery. Because of the plan

with the TAGS program, these people cannot participate in the many training

programs that have been offered in the Province now, to upgrade their skills so

they can find some type of employment outside the fishery, or outside the

Province, for that matter. Because they are not involved directly in the TAGS

program they cannot participate in those training programs.

These people have found there is no other alternative but

social services, in a lot of cases. Just the other day, I spoke to a gentleman

in my district who, for the first time in his life, had to turn to Social

Services. There is a level of dignity that we have to consider here, Mr.

Speaker, and that is why these people send their names forward through this

petition to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. There is no job

creation happening in this Province, there is no job creation happening in rural

Newfoundland. There are jobs up in Voisey's Bay - but there is also a need to

provide some type of funding out in rural communities to help people get along

and get through the hard times we find ourselves in.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of negativity with those

so-called job creation projects, or as they were called back through the years,

the LIP programs or whatever you want to call them, the JD programs, or

whatever. When you go out around rural Newfoundland you will find in many parts

of rural Newfoundland, and indeed, in my district of St. Mary's - the Capes,

many great things that have come to our communities through these job

development programs - new fire halls, water lines, community halls, and

recreation facilities put in place for the children. All these have been done

through those job development programs.

Now, at the same time, I am one to admit that a fair amount

of those job development programs were a waste of money. There were some

concerns among rural associations and councils who sponsored those projects that

the work wasn't being done, but I believe that the purpose is not to throw out

the baby with the bath water, and I believe that is what we have done when

government decided not to fund any more job development projects or some types

of job creation programs.

Mr. Speaker, in the community where I live, and in the

district I represent, there are many people who are hurting this Christmas, and

many people who are finding it very difficult as Christmas approaches to put

food on the table and provide for their children. As we look around, we see many

people who are in desperate shape, and that is why people put forward this

petition today. I ask the minister in all sincerity to take into consideration,

not only the plight of the people in St. Mary's - The Capes who signed this

petition, but indeed the plight of many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are

finding it very, very difficult, especially at this time of year. There has to

be a level of compassion in government. I hope that the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations does not rely on the Federal Government to provide -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MANNING: - all the assistance that is needed for

these people, and that they will find some dollars to put forward to help the

people of this Province. With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity

of presenting the petition.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before I ask you to call

orders, perhaps I could take a minute to indicate the matters we will ask the

House to address today.

In accordance with the arrangements I outlined when we

adjourned yesterday, we have only third readings. In fact, there are thirty-five

third readings we are going to ask the House to address today. So if somebody

asks us what we do, the answer is we make laws, and this is the day we do it.

Because when we deal with those, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor will attend,

and I understand is prepared to consider giving assent if the Assembly should

pass bills and recommend them to him. I have spoken to members opposite. My

understanding is we can anticipate roughly 11:30 a.m. Now, that is not a fixed

deadline but -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) this morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Eleven thirty this morning, if my friend,

the Member for Ferryland can be held down. I notice his colleagues for Burin -

Placentia West and Grand Bank have each got firm hold of his hands, one hand

each, to keep him down.

What we are going to do is start with Order No. 36, go to

Order No. 33, then go to Order No. 31, and go right through to Order No. 3. That

will leave only two bills for third reading, Order No. 32, which are the Hydro

act amendments, and then finally Order No. 2, which are the electoral boundaries

amendments.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend, the Member for Grand

Bank, I am not afraid of anything at all. Having dealt with him for a couple of

years there are no fears left in the world, Mr. Speaker. He is in a category

with one of my colleagues who asked me why, after wearing red ties, I showed up

today wearing a blue tie. The answer is: How can you have a red Santa Claus on a

red tie? My colleague is still thinking about that.

Mr. Speaker, would you please call Order No. 36? Then let's

just take them as they come in accordance with the order I have just given,

Order No. 36 through to Order No. 33, and then Order No. 31 through to Order No.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if we could just take all of the -

these are all third readings.

MR. ROBERTS: They are, Mr. Speaker, and if the House so

wishes, you could simply ask if we agree to read a third time the bills standing

as Order Nos. 36 through 33, and then Order Nos. 31 through 3 on today's Order

Paper, if Your Honour considers that appropriate.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: The Clerks may want to spell each other

reading the titles.

MR. SPEAKER: If it is the agreement of the House.

MR. ROBERTS: I do think we should read the titles,

though.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

On motion, the following bills read a third time, ordered

passed and their titles be as on the Order Paper:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Medical Act." (Bill No. 50)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act." (Bill No. 46)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Provincial Offences." (Bill No.

47)

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Limitations."

(Bill No. 38)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act And The Mineral

Holdings Impost Act." (Bill No. 21)

A bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute

Law." (Bill No. 48)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable

Television Companies Act." (Bill No. 51)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act (No. 2)."

(Bill No. 44)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Standards Of Conduct For

Non-Elected Public Office Holders." (Bill No. 41)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Leaseholds In St. John's Act."

(Bill No. 40)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Investigation Of Fatalities."

(Bill No. 36)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Hospitals Act." (Bill No. 39)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act."

(Bill No. 45)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act." (Bill No.

26)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act."

(Bill No. 4)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Animal Protection Act." (Bill

No. 3)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991." (Bill No.

23)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Executive Council." (Bill No.

32)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act." (Bill No. 12)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act,

1991 And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill No. 25)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Government Money Purchase

Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions

Act, The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, The Memorial University Pensions

Act,

Chapter 18 Of The Statutes Of Newfoundland, 1993 And The Pensions

Contributions Reduction Act." (Bill No. 29)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act." (Bill No.

10)

A bill, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting

Credit Unions." (Bill No. 28)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act And

The

Summary Proceedings Act." (Bill No. 27)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Revision And Consolidation Of

Subordinate Legislation." (Bill No. 7)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Children's Law Act." (Bill No.

34)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act."

(Bill No. 15)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act." (Bill No.

17)

A bill, "An Act To Provide For The Transfer Of The

Trusteeship And Agency Business Of Central Guaranty Trust Company To TD Trust

Company." (Bill No. 30)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991." (Bill No. 33)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Evidence Act." (Bill No. 16)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Social Workers Association Act."

(Bill No. 2)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Hospital And Nursing Home

Association Act." (Bill No. 9)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Could we please call Order 32, which is third reading of the

bill, "An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act, The Electrical Power Control

Act, 1994 and other Acts".

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

Corporation Act, The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 and other Acts." (Bill

No. 35)

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before we adjourn for this holiday season, I think I would be

remiss if I did not have one last word to say on this bill regarding

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

This bill, I suppose, is the culmination of a hallmark of the

Wells Administration since they have come to office. The Premier has been

dogged, if nothing else, in his pursuit of his goal, which he claims is still a

valid goal, to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. This particular bill

does, indeed, fall short of privatization of Hydro, but it is, nonetheless, a

goodly number of steps along the way.

This particular bill makes certain changes in the structure

and procedures of operation of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, all of which

tend to make it more and more like a private company such as, for instance,

Newfoundland Light and Power. One has to wonder if Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro has any sort of public policy purpose any longer under this government.

The shares in the corporation are held in trust for the people of the Province

by the government of the Province, but essentially, it is losing all the aspects

of a Crown corporation. The Public Tender Act, in particular, no longer applies

to the Hydro Corporation, and one is pushed to the limit to understand why that

would be absolutely necessary.

The Premier's call for efficiency in the Hydro Corporation

is, I suppose, a laudable goal in its own right, but how avoidance of public

tenders would help achieve that particular goal is beyond me. When you have an

entity owned by the people through the Crown there is always an element of trust

involved, and the exercise of public trust with regard to the expenditures of

monies in the public domain are, to some extent, circumscribed by the Public

Tender Act, and until such time as the Hydro Corporation is indeed privatized,

as would appear to be the goal of this particular government, I fail to see why

the Hydro Corporation, as a public body, should be exempt from the Public Tender

Act.

Mr. Speaker, governments in this day and age, with the

increasing demands for accountability on the part of the general public, are

hard-pressed to throw money, contracts, consultancies, etc., the way of their

political friends. There are limited opportunities so to do. This government so

did in the case of some hospital contracts some time ago, but rather than

saying, `We wish to make an exception to the Public Tender Act to take care of

some political friends of ours,' they said, `We will try to take care of them by

playing around with the Public Tender Act'. It blew up in their faces,

basically, landed them in court, and had a judgement brought down on them that

they indeed did breach the Public Tender Act, and I think the political damage

to the reputation of government in general, and to the Liberal Party in

particular, would have been far less had they been up front with people and

said, `We don't want to obey the rules; we want to look after our friends, and

we are making an exception to the rule in this particular case to look after our

friends.' That would have given them a black eye politically. What they did gave

them two black eyes politically, so the ilk is still there on the part of this

government to so do and one has to wonder just what abuses possibly could occur

in a Crown owned Hydro corporation run by a government appointed board of

directors that is in no way, shape or form answering to the laws regarding

public tendering in this Province. That, Mr. Speaker, is a major concern and one

that should not go unnoted before this bill passes into law.

The other major item that we pointed out in Opposition, Mr.

Speaker, is that the changes in the procedures and structures of Newfoundland

Hydro will inevitably increase costs for the corporation. Now Newfoundland Hydro

does not sell biscuits, it does not sell flour, it does not sell gasoline. It

sells hydro electric power, a good chunk of which it generates through its own

machinery and equipment throughout the Province. It is a developer and

distributor of hydro electric power to the people of the Province. The only

product it has to sell, either directly to the people in certain areas like in

the district that I represent or in certain areas here on the Avalon where they

wholesale power to Newfoundland Light and Power who in turn retail it to the

general public. The only source of income Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has

for the most part, is in the sale of electricity. So when its costs are

increased by virtue of impositions on it from Cabinet order, by virtue of

impositions on it from the Public Utilities Board or by virtue of impositions on

it with regard to structural and procedural changes, Mr. Speaker, those costs

inevitably will be passed on to the public of Newfoundland and Labrador through

an application, through the Public Utilities Board, for higher electrical rates.

So, Mr. Speaker, I won't belabour the point, we have said it

over and over. There has been considerable debate. The government saw fit to

cause considerable uproar in this Assembly by calling a closure motion very

early in the game on discussions on Hydro. Events which, let's say, led to my

untimely exit from this Chamber but, Mr. Speaker, I am back again. I stand on

what I said about Newfoundland Hydro before I left the Chamber and I say it

again that this is a policy change ultimately following the Premier's goal of

privatizing Hydro. In the short term it is going to increase the cost of

operating Hydro. The people will have to pay those costs. The other thing that

government has done in recent years, through its budget, is ask Hydro to become

a cash cow for government to basically raise taxes for the government through

increased electricity rates. Either way, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province

will pay through higher electricity rates. A degree of public trust will be

eroded by virtue of the fact that the Public Tender Act no longer applies to

this corporation and we think that is simply not good enough.

The government does not have a mandate to do what its doing

with regard to Hydro. It is putting it on the road to privatization. The people

of Newfoundland and Labrador have spoken loudly and soundly that they don't want

that policy direction at this stage in our history and until such time, Mr.

Speaker, as the people give this government or another government the mandate so

to do, I do not honestly believe that this government has the mandate to do what

it is about. However, Mr. Speaker, it does have the majority in this Assembly

and no doubt will have its way with regard to this particular bill but I for

one, as a member for a district served directly by Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro in terms of providing electricity to consumers, I for one, as the mines

and energy critic for the Opposition, would be remiss if I let this Assembly

close for Christmas without putting these concerns on the record. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is important to

speak for, I guess, one last time the position in this session of the House on

this legislation. Legislation was introduced really as part of the, I suppose,

as part of the Premier's political swan song to leave on the books a piece of

legislation which would provide for the accomplishment of the privatization of

Hydro which the people of this Province rejected so resoundingly in the forum of

public opinion when it was introduced directly, but what we see here,

significant changes to the Hydro Corporation Act that create a class of

shareholders who are unnamed in the bill, but who are given the authority that

is currently held by the Cabinet to appoint the chief executive officer to give

directions to the corporation, to establish authorized share capital for the

corporation, to establish common shares, preferred shares, to determine what the

rights, restrictions, redemptions, privileges, conditions or limitations of

those shares that the shareholders may consider desirable; all of these

functions are currently functions that are held by the Crown in right of the

Province with the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

What purpose, other than to pave the way for the next step of

putting shares in private hands, could these provisions have, Mr. Speaker? It is

patently obvious that this is the intention of government, and they go further

in this legislation and effectively create a private corporation. The only thing

public about it is that the shares are currently owned, and I say currently

owned by the people of the Province. In all other respects, the corporation is

expected to act as if it were a private corporation. Further provisions and

powers are given to the Cabinet in the legislation to in fact direct the Public

Utilities Board to treat Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro exactly the same as it

treats Newfoundland Light and Power.

Other provisions of the act remove certain other public

policy provisions and obligations from the Hydro Corporation. The Public Tender

Act is amended to strike out the requirement that the Hydro Corporation follow

the Public Tender Act. What public purpose does that serve, Mr. Speaker? What

public purpose does that serve if, or unless, the Premier and the government

determine the public purpose to be to privatize Hydro? The Provincial Preference

Act deletes Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro from the requirements of following

the Provincial Preference Act. The Freedom of Information Act is amended to

protect Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and its activities from enquiry by the

public. The Crown Lands Act is amended to take away specific, special provisions

for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro; the Labour Relations Act is to apply and

not the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, all of those changes are made

for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to pave the way to privatize

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Now the Official Opposition has concentrated its criticism of

the bill on the increase in the power rates and that's a significant event that

will come from the changes that are made here. The same increases that would

have been part of the privatization scheme that was proposed the last time but

they go hand in hand, Mr. Speaker, the privatization of Hydro and the increase

in power rates to the public go hand in hand, and both will come from the

passage of this legislation. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the changes to this act

take away the first right of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to the water power

resources of the Province by amending the act to remove specific provisions that

give it that first right. In addition, the legislation removes the power of the

Corporation to expropriate lands for the purposes of hydro generation and

transmission, which of course it has now, subject to the approval of the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council. But that power is also taken away.

Mr. Speaker, the mission statement of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro as it now exists and as has been set forth in the annual reports

of the Corporation was as follows: To provide electricity to the people of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador at the lowest possible price consistent

with reliable service and safety of its employees. That is the mission that

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro had and described in that way, or words very

much like that, in their annual report. That is the role that the public

corporation undertook. The role and the potentiality of the Hydro corporation to

be and continue to be the engine of economic growth and development in this

Province is being taken away by this bill the same way as it would have been had

the previous legislation, which specifically and directly and openly attempted

to privatize the Hydro Corporation last year.

I opposed it then, Mr. Speaker, and I oppose it now. Let the

record show that that opposition continues to this day and will continue beyond

the passage of this legislation.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation

Act, The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 And Other Acts," read a third time,

ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 35)

AN HON. MEMBER: Call Bill No. 31, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 2, Bill No. 31,

An Act To Amend

The House Of Assembly Act And The Electoral Boundaries Act.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to have a very few

brief words on this bill. I think that the government is not doing nearly enough

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think that what government is

doing in this regard makes absolutely no sense. I think it is unfortunate. It

make absolutely no sense whatsoever for the Minister of Justice to go up in his

office and start drawing lines across boundaries in this Province. The district

of Burin - Placentia West has been that same district since 1975, I believe. In

1975 those boundaries were put in place for Burin - Placentia West. The district

has been represented, Mr. Speaker, by myself for just about fourteen years, by

Mr. Hollett for a term, and by Mr. Canning for a term.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Barry.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Barry never represented Burin -

Placentia West. He represented Placentia West. The Burin part was not part of

it. The town of Burin was in Grand Bank. It was called Burin district. That

district has been represented by three of us, Mr. Canning, Mr. Hollett, and

myself, since 1975, and it was not too big a district to represent, and I think

it is unfortunate that this government has decided to downsize the district of

Burin - Placentia West. I think it is regrettable. It was not a district that

was hard to represent or impossible to represent, and I say to the people of

Winterland, to the people of Lewin's Cove, to the people of Salmonier and

Epworth, that there is no need for them to have left the district of Burin -

Placentia West except for the arrogance of this government and the contempt they

have shown to these people. There is no need for them to be leaving that

district and going to the district of Grand Bank, none whatsoever.

There is no need for the community of Monkstown to be leaving

the district of Burin - Placentia West, part of Placentia Bay where they have

always been. There is no need for them to be leaving that district and put in

the Bellevue district. I say that it has been a great honour to represent the

people in these communities. I have been honoured, privileged, and proud to have

represented all of them. It is with regret that I see the government moving to

take these people from my district. I am not about to say there will be no one

who can represent them better than I did. I am not about to say that, Mr.

Speaker. That is up to those people to decide.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are a good member.

MR. TOBIN: I thank both ministers for saying I have been

a good member. I appreciate it. I say that these people I know do not want to

leave the district of Burin - Placentia West, and I do not want them to leave

the district of Burin - Placentia West. I will vote against it, Mr. Speaker, as

I have in every stage so far, and I will continue to vote against it. Burin -

Placentia was a unique district. It took all the west side of Placentia Bay and

kept it in one district where it should be, but today when this bill is passed

and bullied through the House they will no longer be one, but will go in two

other districts, Grand Bank in Fortune Bay and in the district of Bellevue that

is Fortune Bay, Trinity Bay, and Placentia Bay.

I feel very sad, Mr. Speaker, to lose these people, this hard

working farming community in Winterland, real hard working, as fine a people as

you could ever meet. Lewin's Cove is tied in Epworth with Burin with the

fisheries, as Monkstown is a fishing community. It is not a very proud day for

me and it is not a very happy day to see these people taken from this district.

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I really wish government

had not seen fit to do it. I regret they have done it, and I can only say to

these people from the bottom of my heart a sincere thank you for giving me the

opportunity to represent them, all of them without exception, regardless of

their political stripe, regardless of anything. I have been proud and honoured

to represent each and every one of them and I really regret this day.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor - Buchans.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, since this is the last

opportunity that a member in this Legislature will have to voice his concerns

about this bill, or his support for it, I want to be on record to say that I do

not understand what has happened. I do not support it, and never have supported

it from day one. Everybody who has been associated with the bill or with the

renumeration knows that.

The district of Windsor - Buchans as it now exists have

elected me five times. I came within seventy-four votes of being elected in

Windsor - Buchans six times and the district is about to disappear, Mr. Speaker.

Half roughly will go with Green Bay and half will go with Grand Falls. There is

not a person who I have ever spoke to in the district that supports what has

happened to Windsor - Buchans, and that is understandable. I haven't met a

person in Newfoundland who understands the logic behind the make-up of the new

district, when one considers that part of Windsor is gone with Green Bay, yet

Badger that sits right smack between Green Bay and Windsor is with Grand Falls.

I want to take this opportunity to be on record as saying

that I had hoped, as the member who spoke previously, I regret what has

happened. I want to, in Hansard and in the records of this House of Assembly, be

on record of expressing my concern, expressing the views of the people who I

represent, with regards to what their political future will be in as far as

electoral boundaries are concerned.

The people from Buchans, Millertown, Buchan's Junction and

Badger have no objections to joining Grand Falls. The House will know that prior

to 1975 Buchans, Badger, Millertown, Buchan's Junction were indeed a part of the

Grand Falls district, as was Windsor. That recommendation was made from Day 1.

From the time the boundaries commission was set up that recommendation was made

to the various boundary commissions that that is the way it should be. I

recognize, I understand the dilemma of the government. Once 10 per cent variance

was established there was no way that that district could then exist as we were

recommending. I am not convinced and I never will be convinced that we could not

have accepted, in the case of Windsor - Buchans because of the geographic

problems there, a 25 per cent variance which would have solved the problem as is

seen by the people of Windsor - Buchans.

I just take this opportunity to go on record for my own

conscience's sake. I believe I owe it to the people who have elected me over the

past twenty years to point out that I too regret this development. I too regret

that the District of Windsor - Buchans - sometimes we stand up and we use words

like historical. I agree with people who say there is nothing great or

historical in the sense that the district has only existed for twenty years. But

they were very proud of the fact that they were Windsor - Buchans. There was a

commonality amongst the people of Windsor, Buchans, Badger and Millertown. Their

economy was based on the same resources, there was a great interaction between

the various communities in that district. When this bill is proclaimed that will

be gone.

I have not run into anyone in the district who objects or is

concerned because they are going with another district. Buchans shows no regrets

or sorrow or ill feelings that it is going with Grand Falls. Part of Windsor

doesn't resist or resent the fact that it is going with Springdale. They are

just saying: Why was all this necessary in the situation we have in Windsor -

Buchans? I personally don't believe it was, I wished it could have been

otherwise. The government saw fit to accept the recommendations of the

commission that in effect eliminates and wipes out forever the District of

Windsor - Buchans. I don't believe that it is in the long-term better interests

of either the District of Windsor - Buchans or the electoral process in

Newfoundland in the first instance.

Again I wish the two districts as they will be made up - the

part of the district that goes with Springdale, Green Bay - I wish them well. I

have no doubt that their concerns will be well represented by the elected member

of the new district. I'm sure that also applies to the part of my district that

will go with Grand Falls. As long as I am a member of this Assembly, or as long

as I am given the privilege to represent those people, I will do the job to the

best of my ability.

I want to say something else. I want to say to the people of

the District of Windsor - Buchans that regardless how the district is split,

regardless if a portion of my constituents who have been my constituents for

twenty years go with Green Bay, or a portion of my constituents who have been my

constituents for twenty years goes with the District of Grand Falls, I will be,

as I have been for twenty years, in this House or outside of this House of

Assembly, available, Mr. Speaker, to help deal with the concerns and work for

the betterment of the people of what is now the District of Windsor - Buchans.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just like a

few brief words. It is probably appropriate that I follow on the heels of the

current Member for Windsor - Buchans. I understand that the member regrets that

the District of Windsor - Buchans will be no more, in the same way as I regret

that the District of Green Bay that I currently represent, that was previously

represented by a former premier, Mr. Peckford, will be no more.

As to why this happened, let there be no doubt whatsoever,

this has occurred because of the greed of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and

Labrador, simply put. It is a hard thing to say just before Christmas but that

is the bottom line on it. There was due process put in place here. The Liberal

Party couldn't live with due process. It manipulated on a couple of separate

occasions the electorial boundaries redistribution process, and what came out of

it in the end were districts called Windsor - Springdale, Grand Falls - Buchans.

The government would not show any flexibility about making

the newly amalgamated town of Grand Falls - Windsor into one district. It bound

itself in very tight with a plus or minus 10 per cent rule on population. It

didn't allow the person drawing up the boundaries any real flexibility in making

the boundaries make sense. The Member for Windsor - Buchans is correct. What has

been done in Central Newfoundland with regard to electoral boundaries does not

make any sense. But be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, very shortly the

Lieutenant-Governor will be coming into this Chamber and signing his name to a

bill which will make law a forty-eight seat House of Assembly in which the

Central Newfoundland area will see the Baie Verte district pick up a piece of

the old Green Bay district, Springdale, South Brook to Brighton be added to most

of the former town of Windsor to form a district called Windsor - Springdale,

and the remainder of Windsor and Grand Falls going together with the Buchans -

Badger area to form Grand Falls - Buchans.

That will be the law of the land. All I can say to the people

who I hope to represent after the next election is: Welcome to Windsor -

Springdale. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, like some of the

members who have spoken here this morning, have some concerns with this bill. I

spoke in the Committee stage of this bill and moved an amendment to the effect

that I felt that it just didn't make sense, the division that was used when they

broke up the District of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir and they put Ramea and Grey River

into the eastern end of that district. It just doubled the work of the member

who is going to represent that eastern district, and it made it more difficult.

It certainly didn't do anything to cut down on the cost of servicing that

district.

Not only that, at the time that I spoke in Committee stage of

this bill I tabled letters from the various towns that were going to be

affected, Burgeo, Ramea and Grey River, to the effect that they didn't want this

to happen. For that reason I am opposed to this bill. As I said in my previous

remarks, the government certainly has the right to - and legally had to call for

redistribution. But the 25 per cent tolerance, if it was put into effect, it

should have been up or down, and that was what was included in the original

direction that was given to the commission.

I still fail to see how a vote in Franois is only worth a

third of what a vote is in West St. Modeste. I have serious problems about it

and I feel that this division is improper, the way that this district was broken

up by taking Ramea and Grey River and putting them into the eastern part of that

district. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, if it is in order, I would like to move,

seconded by my friend, the Member for Windsor - Buchans, that the district of

Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir be broken up, with Ramea and Grey River going into the

LaPoile district and from Franois east be into the Cape La Hune district.

I would like to move at this time, that that motion that I

put in the committee stage - the division once again be used to break up that

district. It is fixed within the 25 per cent up or down. I move that, Mr.

Speaker, at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Before, Your Honour, rules on this I have -

MR. SPEAKER: No, the Chair does not have a copy of the

amendment. I wonder if the hon. -

MR. ROBERTS: No, I have not seen it either but the

submission I would make, and I will try to find the reference here in

Beauchesne, is that the amendment is not admissible at third reading. At third

reading, the only amendments admissible, in my understanding, is a six-month

hoist or some variation there on it, a three-month hoist or a twenty-six-month

hoist. So I understand what leads my hon. friend to suggest it, but my

submission to Your Honour is, it is out of order at this stage in the

proceeding.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the Chair has just consulted with the

Table briefly on it and that type of amendment would have to come in the

Committee stage. The six-month hoist or the reasoned amendment of that nature

would be acceptable in third reading but the hon. member's amendment is not

acceptable - it is out of order.

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to make a few comments on the changes in

electoral boundaries in the Province and the bill that is before the House

today. I think I would be remiss if I did not make a few comments on it. As a

new member elected in 1993, I represent the district of St. Mary's - The Capes,

of which parts of it will be now joined to Ferryland district, Mr. Speaker - the

communities of Trepassey, Biscay Bay and Portugal Cove South. The reminder of

the district now will be joined with about 75 per cent of the present Placentia

district. I would just like to say, that as the new member for this district and

the people I represent in Trepassey, Biscay Bay and Portugal Cove South, it has

been indeed an honour to represent them here in the House of Assembly. Their

concerns I have brought forward to this House as best I could over the past

couple of years and I look forward until the next election in remaining to bring

them forth.

I am also pleased that Trepassey and the area have been

joined with Ferryland in the sense that if there had to be changes made, that

this was one of the proper changes to make, Mr. Speaker, and indeed that my hon.

colleague, the Member for Ferryland will, I am sure, be looking forward to

representing those people after the next election. We will be working together

over the next year or so before the next election to make sure that the concerns

of those people are brought forward to the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, the whole problem with the changes are that they

affect every part of the Province and indeed, have a drastic effect on parts of

rural Newfoundland, and the main concern I have is that the population of a

district in rural Newfoundland is equal to the population of a district in the

metro parts of the Province. That certainly is a concern, because I think it is

unfair that a district in St. John's, Mr. Speaker, or some other metro part of

the Province, would have the same population base as a district out in rural

Newfoundland. The new district of Placentia and St. Mary's, Mr. Speaker, will

have over 11,000 people and will be spread out over a vast geographical area and

have to deal with many, many communities and organizations that all have their

own individual problems. I think, myself, that is a concern that will be echoed

over the next couple of months and indeed, into the years following, but be that

as it is, the government has the right and the power to do what they are putting

forward here today, and I think we have no other choice but to live with it. We

have expressed our concerns through the public hearings that were held by the

independent commission. We have expressed our concerns here in the House of

Assembly and tried to right the wrong, as they say, but I guess we have to put

up with what the government has put forward here today.

I would just like to reiterate that it has been an honour for

me, and will be until the next election, to represent the people of Trepassey,

Biscay Bay and Portugal Cove South. There has been a concern raised by the

people of St. Shotts, in my district, as they have many connections with the

Trepassey area. The people of St. Shotts raised their concern with me a couple

of weeks ago concerning the fact that their development association, their

schools, the Department of Highways, everything is in line with the Trepassey

area, and that they now are part of the Placentia and St. Mary's district, and

there was some concern. As a matter of fact, there was a public meeting in the

community and they raised some concerns that they may like to be part of the

Ferryland district because of their historical ties with that end of the

Southern Shore.

I certainly do not have a problem with that. If the people of

St. Shotts want that, we will try to work with it. I approached the Government

House Leader on this particular issue, and he told me that it was too late in

the House proceedings to move an amendment or to correct the boundaries because

of the situation that we found ourselves in - we were past second reading and

into third reading, and that is why I cannot move an amendment today. I checked

with the Government House Leader a couple of weeks ago on that, and he advised

me that it cannot be done in order with what is going on here in the House. But

hopefully, in the Spring, we may present some petitions, and maybe an amendment

may be in order at that time. I will be conferring with the Government House

Leader on that.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the challenges ahead that are

going to come with the new district of Placentia and St. Mary's. There will be

challenges, there is no doubt, challenges for all of us to face, and I look

forward to them.

We are waiting now for the Lieutenant-Governor to arrive to

enact these bills, so really we have no other choice than to put up with what

has come forward from the government. I just hope that when the

Lieutenant-Governor arrives, his car is in good working order and that he

doesn't have to get a drive back home by one of us hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, the whole boundary issue has been clouded from

interference, and we can argue that until the cows come home, but it is not

going to change what is going to happen here today. So I just say that it has

been an honour to represent the historical district of St. Mary's - The Capes,

and I look forward to the challenge ahead, whatever may come.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor - Buchans.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Has the hon. member already spoken on this issue?

MR. FLIGHT: I thought we were into Committee where we -

MR. SPEAKER: No, no, we are in third reading.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a few comments regarding this bill.

From day one, I believed that the number of seats should be

reduced reasonably, down to about forty seats. The commission had a mandate to

follow initially. The initial commission, the official commission, had a

mandate, forty to forty-six seats. The Government House Leader intervened and

changed that mandate midstream on the thirty-second meeting out of forty when he

went on behalf of government, on behalf of Cabinet, out to Clarenville. They

changed that. They came back with a forty-four recommendation. Then it was

changed again and a new appointment, and before it went to that appointment

stage there were scenarios worked out, forty-six, forty-seven, forty-eight, one

proposal of forty-eight seats.

I feel, in a time of economic restraint, when we are looking

for 10 per cent budget cuts next year on a provincial Budget, trying to take $80

million out of health, when a committee spent between $400,000 and $500,000, and

they changed their mandate in midstream, we should be looking at more cutting

changes here. We should be looking at realigning this Province into a maximum of

forty seats, or in that forty-seat range. To take four seats out of the House of

Assembly will only save a pittance in comparison to the budget of the House of

Assembly of $8 million, I think, for this aspect of the budget. We will have a

net savings probably in the vicinity of about $100,000 a member, in that ball

park. We still have mailing and other related costs that are going to be there

anyway. We are still going to have the fixed costs of operating the House of

Assembly here, they are going to be there, and it is only a token effort what is

being done here in reducing the boundaries. It has been interfered with and

gerrymandered from day one. The Government House Leader, representing

government, has gerrymandered it, has thrown out and has not given any due

consideration to the commission's report, Judge Mahoney's report, and changed

those terms. And in a report that was indicated there, he said, in effect, the

report from that commission has been a waste of time. Reference was made in

meetings and in documentation to indicate it was a complete waste of taxpayers'

money and time to have such a report there and then to change it.

I don't think it is appropriate. I don't think the number is

appropriate to reflect the times we are asking other people in the Province to

have to undergo. With cutbacks here, the members of the House of Assembly - and

government, are not prepared to take the cuts that they are asking other people

in this Province to take. I don't think that is acceptable. We should have to

bear a proportionate share of cuts, the same as any other people around the

Province.

To spend, say, $400,000 by taking away four seats in the

House of Assembly when we should have followed an independent commission at

arm's length and let them make a recommendation, listen to the public which they

did at forty different meetings initially, I think, and another eight meetings

later, at forty-eight meetings, then the commission came back. And this House

should accept that independent, arm's length report and not gerrymander round

with it to have no real substance.

One other point - the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir: We

had an avenue to meet with the Member for Burgeo -Bay d'Espoir's request to

allow a 25 per cent deviation in rural areas or any area of this Province. That

25 per cent that was there in legislation before this government changed it

allowed a slightly larger urban seat up to 25 per cent, or 25 per cent less

people in rural Newfoundland. The Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir and other

people in more remote areas, in Labrador and the South Coast and other areas,

would have that tolerance level a little greater than it is now. They closed it

down to 10 per cent. They hand-cuffed the committee so that the committee

couldn't do its work properly, initially with a 10 per cent deviation from the

mean. The government realized the folly and then they made exceptions to that

deviation there to be able to cope with it.

I think it was wrong from the beginning. I think carte

blanche should have been given to the commission to do its work in accord with

the people of this Province. It should not have been swayed by politicians

inside this House or politicians working outside this House to affect the report

of that commission. It wasn't done properly. I disagree with the process, I

disagree with the final result, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls.

MR. MACKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I realize, at any moment the Lieutenant-Governor will be

arriving, so I will be very brief.

However, I would like to go on record as opposing this bill,

especially as it pertains to the new districts of Grand Falls - Buchans and

Windsor - Springdale. Back in 1991, the government spent about $16 million on

amalgamating the two towns of Grand Falls and Windsor. This was a perfect

opportunity for making this particular town as one district. This could have

happened if the government had allowed the 25 per cent variance there. With the

population of the town of Grand Falls - Windsor with 14,693 that certainly would

have been made possible. It would have also helped solidify the amalgamation

that went on back in 1991. It is working very well. It would have made a lot of

sense, both politically and economically, to have the town together as one

district, having one member to serve the entire town. However, having said that,

I will certainly look forward to and would certainly go after the new district

of Grand Falls - Buchans, and I will certainly be honoured to represent people

in Badger, Buchans, Millertown and Buchan's Junction.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am, however, somewhat rewarded in

the amendment that was passed to allow part of the district to come back into

the District of Grand Falls-Buchans. Again, Mr. Speaker, I just want to

reiterate that I would like to go on record as opposing this bill particularly

as it relates to how it changes the District of Grand Falls and Windsor-Buchans.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I understand that His Honour is

in the precincts of the House, but perhaps I could be allowed just a minute or

two, to respond to some of the remarks made by the members who have spoken. I

won't be very long, I assure members.

I want to make three points. First of all, the Member for

Green Bay and I noted in his words said: it was a hard thing, and those were his

exact words to say and he made some accusations about the way the ministry had

conducted this. He is certainly entitled to his political opinions. The fact

that I believe they are wrong and that his statement is simply incorrect is a

matter that he and I can debate some other time. I don't believe this bill is a

hard thing; to the contrary I believe this bill is one of the best

redistribution bills ever adopted by a Legislature and that includes the two

that the Tory Party put through when they had the responsibility for governing

this Province, the first in 1974 and the second in 1984.

Secondly, I acknowledge the points made by members who have

spoken on behalf of individual constituencies and I respect what they said, the

fact that the government are not able to accept the various pleas that they put

forward, doesn't weaken the sincerity of the pleas; it is unfortunate that the

principles upon which we base the bill would not allow us to accommodate these

pleas but, so be it, members have spoken and the electorate will judge.

The third point I want to make is that, this redistribution

bill is the fairest and most principled redistribution bill ever put before the

House of Assembly in this Province. For the first time we are getting as close

as is practical to do, to what I believe is the supreme representational

principle in a democracy and that is this: that one person one vote, and every

person has a vote as nearly as possible equal to that of ever other person, so I

commend the bill to the House and move that it be now read a third time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act

And The Electoral Boundaries Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its

title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 31).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could just stand

easy; I don't know where His Honour is, but I understand he is about to attend

upon us. Alright, at the door, even as we speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Admit His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

Your Honour: "It is my agreeable duty on behalf of Her

Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, Her Faithful Commons in Newfoundland, to

present to Your Honour a Bill for the appropriation of Supplementary Supply

granted in the present session."

A bill, "An Act To Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of

Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The

Financial Year Ending March 31, 1995, And For Other Purposes Relating To The

Public Service".

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR; "In Her Majesty's name, I thank Her

Loyal Subjects, I accept their benevolence, and I assent to this Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: May it please Your Honour, the General

Assembly of the Province has at its present session passed certain bills, to

which, in the name and on behalf of the General Assembly I respectfully request

Your Honour's assent.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act,

1957." (Bill No. 14)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957."

(Bill No. 13)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Medical Act." (Bill No. 50)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act." (Bill No. 46)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Provincial Offences." (Bill No.

47)

A bill, "An Act to Revise The Law Respecting Limitations."

(Bill No. 38)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act And The Mineral

Holdings Impost Act." (Bill No. 21)

A bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute

Law." (Bill No. 48)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable

Television Companies Act." (Bill No. 51)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act (No. 2)."

(Bill No. 44)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Standards Of Conduct For

Non-Elected Public Office Holders." (Bill No. 41)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Leaseholds In St. John's Act."

(Bill No. 40)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Investigation Of Fatalities."

(Bill No. 36)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Hospitals Act." (Bill No. 39)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act."

(Bill No. 45)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act." (Bill No.

26)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act."

(Bill No. 4)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Animal Protection Act." (Bill

No. 3)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991." (Bill No.

23)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Executive Council." (Bill No.

32)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act." (Bill No. 12)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act,

1991 And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill No. 25)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Government Money Purchase

Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions

Act, The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, The Memorial University Pensions

Act,

Chapter 18 Of The Statutes Of Newfoundland, 1993 And The Pensions

Contributions Reduction Act." (Bill No. 29)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act." (Bill No.

10)

A bill, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting

Credit Unions." (Bill No. 28)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act And

The

Summary Proceedings Act." (Bill No. 27)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Revision And Consolidation Of

Subordinate Legislation." (Bill No. 7)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Children's Law Act." (Bill No.

34)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act."

(Bill No. 15)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act." (Bill No.

17)

A bill, "An Act To Provide For The Transfer Of The

Trusteeship And Agency Business Of Central Guaranty Trust Company To TD Trust

Company." (Bill No. 30)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991." (Bill No. 33)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Evidence Act." (Bill No. 16)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Social Workers Association Act."

(Bill No. 2)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Hospital And Nursing Home

Association Act." (Bill No. 9)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act, The

Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 And Other Acts." (Bill No. 35)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Act And The

Electoral Boundaries Act." (Bill No. 31)

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: In Her Majesty's name, I assent to

these bills.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the Honourable House of Assembly,

I would like to thank you for your deliberations on behalf of the people of our

Province. I would also like to take this opportunity to wish all members and

their families a very Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous 1996.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: With Your Honour's permission, just before

you go, I would like to reciprocate to Your Honour and Her Honour the kind

wishes for a very Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year,

but I should also take advantage of this opportunity to express to Your Honour

my personal appreciation for Your Honour's constant availability throughout the

year. As you know Your Honour and I meet usually once a week, every Thursday,

and discuss matters that are of great concern in the Province so that Your

Honour will be fully informed as to these public issues, and so that I can have

the benefit of Your Honour's advice and counsel on those issues as well. I want

on behalf of all members of the House of Assembly to express those good wishes

to Your Honour, but in particular on behalf of the government and myself to

express appreciation for Your Honour's many courtesies.

Thank you, very much.

THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Thank you, Premier. I, too, very

much appreciate the opportunities we have had to get together and to be informed

on what is happening.

Thank you.

[His Honour, the Lieutenant Governor, leaves the Chamber.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: I have only two chores left, both of which

are very enjoyable. First, I would like to thank all the members of the House on

both sides, on all three sides if we could have three sides in a two sided

House, and in particular my colleague the gentleman for Grand Bank for the way

in which, I think, we have all worked together. It is not a matter of helping

me. All of us have worked together to enable the House to address and to deal

with a very substantial workload. I haven't checked back through the records but

certainly in my twenty-five years in the House I cannot recollect a session that

has addressed, dealt with, and resolved more, or more substantial legislation

than we have dealt with today. There have been sessions where more bills were

passed, but when I heard the clerk reading out the list of the bills to which

His Honour gave assent there is a significant amount of legislation there that

will have a significant impact and we believe a beneficial one on the people of

the Province. I think all members of the House have a right to feel pride and

take pride in that.

Secondly, I would like to wish everybody a very Merry

Christmas and that in particular includes not only you, Mr. Speaker, and my

fellow members but the staff of the House. Without their help - the Clarks or

Clerks as my friend the Minister of Education insists, that is C-l-u-r-k-s for

the benefit of the people at Hansard - the Clarks and the table officers, the

Law Council, the Legislative drafters who attend to us. We are very well served

by the men and the women who work in this House. In particular, if I may, my

friend in a non-parliamentary but a very real sense of thirty years standing,

Mr. Oates who sits up in the gallery and turns us on or turns us off. He doesn't

turn us off as often as other people would want to I realize and turns us on

only in the parliamentary sense, I hasten to add but I understand Mr. Oates is

about to retire after a long and distinguished career in the public service. I

know members would join me in wishing him very well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Members would be interested to know, this is

not the latest day we have ever adjourned before Christmas. We adjourned on

December 21, 1983. There was no fall sitting in 1986 to 1988 for whatever reason

but this is the second latest date we have ever adjourned. The latest date we

ever adjourned was on December 23, 1992 and I remember that was just after; (

a) the House sat all night and (

b) half of downtown St. John's burned down. So I am

glad that we avoided both events here.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I will move the adjournment

motion. The motion is in the usual form at the call of the Chair but I should

advise members that we anticipate - we shall ask members to come back probably

not later then the end of January, possibly earlier. The Mining and Mineral Tax

Act is in the hands of the Committee and the Committee will be reporting in due

course when they have done their work but members should anticipate that the

House will be called together for a relatively short session, a fortnight or so,

at the end of January or thereabouts. I will let members know as soon as we have

some dates but I do want members to be aware of that so they can make their

plans accordingly.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I will move that when the House

adjourns it stand adjourned at the call of the Chair.

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

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

confident as I am with my new colleague here, the Leader of the Opposition, soon

to be Premier Tobin, I am not yet -

MR. ROBERTS: That could happen.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes. But I am not yet the Government

House Leader and he hasn't promised me anything, that's the other thing.

MR. TOBIN: But you will be well-looked after.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I know but, Mr. Speaker, I just

want to join with the Government House Leader in extending best wishes for

Christmas and the New Year to all members and to you, Mr. Speaker, and staff. To

Mr. Oates, I would like to wish him a good retirement if he so chooses to

retire. I just want to say this, and I said to the press when they asked me

outside, what was my impression of this fall sitting, and I have to be honest,

in that I think it is the most - not I think, it is the most productive fall

sitting in the House that I have participated in; listening to the Government

House Leader, it seems I didn't participate in too many fall sittings when I was

in government but there were a few, but having said that, I am very serious,

that we have accomplished a lot here this fall, very good legislation and

substantial legislation and I think as an Opposition we have been effective in

pointing out some flaws, there have been some amendments, good amendments, so it

has been a good sitting really, and I think all members should be thanked and

congratulated for that. There were times when it got a little bit out of hand

but it seems that we always get like that every fall when we get close to

Christmas for whatever reason when we should be getting in the other mood, we

seem to get a little bit carried away.

MR. TOBIN: Roberts' fault.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But I want to wish you all a Merry

Christmas and a Happy New Year. Yes, things went so well when he was in Ottawa.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That's true, that's a good point. The

Member for Burin - Placentia West wasn't there either, he was stuck on the Burin

Peninsula, so maybe the Premier and I should think seriously about that I guess.

MR. SULLIVAN: If Chuck wasn't travelling so much, we

would be out of here in October.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, the big worry with the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology, the Member for Burin - Peninsula West asked the

Premier when he was gone if he thought he would be back for Christmas? Well, I

am glad to see that he is.

Mr. Speaker, just one comment related to what the Government

House Leader said and that is: my understanding is that the committee that is

going to be dealing with the Mining Tax Act scheduled their meetings or hearings

for February, so -

AN HON. MEMBER: First and second.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, so that then means you won't be

back in January, is my point, I just mentioned that to you because, obviously

you weren't aware of it but I just heard this morning from one of our members

who is on the committee, that meetings are scheduled for the first week of

February. I know the urgency for the government to deal with this bill because

the Premier and I talked about it, and the Government House Leader, so I don't

know if there is anything that could be done to - but I am just alerting the

Premier and the Government House Leader to that. Anyway, have a Merry Christmas

and a Happy New Year, and I look forward to seeing you in '96.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too would like to take this opportunity briefly to wish all

members of the House a Merry Christmas and as well to you, Mr. Speaker, and to

the staff of the House including the Pages and Mr. Oates, who has been looking

after our noise levels, to some extent.

I also agree with both the Government House Leader and the

Opposition House Leader that it has been a very productive session. There is

very important legislation here on this Order Paper. Not all of it I agree with,

frankly, as was obvious from the debates, but those few bills aside there has

been very important legislation passed, and very ameliorative legislation passed

on a number of substantial issues. I think we have accomplished a fair deal over

the last few months. I think we should be pleased with the progress that has

been there, and the fact that some of these bills have received substantial

amendments as well during this session.

I do want to extend my best wishes to all, and hopefully we

can all leave here very shortly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Committee met

yesterday and it was decided that it would be early in January before we could

put the notice in. There was little purpose of putting a notice in on the next

weekend because of the Christmas rush. Members felt that after giving the notice

the earliest time would be the last week of January, or early in February.

However, it is going to be discussed again on January 22 to see what sort of

response we have.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friend for

Grand Bank, I certainly was glad to yield to him, and I had every hope and

expectation he would speak. My thought was we have an adjournment debate.

Because I just mentioned to the Premier that the basic rule of the House, as we

all know, is there is always a motion before the Chair. That is the basis of all

our procedure. We have had no motion. But no harm. I appreciate the remarks.

PREMIER WELLS: No motion, no harm.

MR. ROBERTS: I would say the Premier is sounding like the

Leader of the Opposition, no motion, no harm.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I guess the next Government House Leader

won't say that, Mr. Speaker.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: With respect to the coming back together we

will obviously have to play it as it comes and I wanted -

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) thank the former Minister of

Justice (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I say, the next -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Once again the Premier has taken his cue. I

just said, the next Government House Leader won't say these things, I assure

(inaudible).

Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to do was to let members know so

in making their plans for the next month or so they would be aware that we

shall, I believe, have to ask the House to come together. We will let members

know as soon as we are in a position to know for ourselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) - I say to my friend for Burin -

Placentia West, and I thank him for feeding me the straight lines, that depends

on how long he speaks.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Exactly. And if he is going to say

something, we could be here longer than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I think before we get in any

further let's move the adjournment.

Mr. Speaker, I move that when the House adjourns today it

stands adjourned at the call of the Chair. The Speaker, or in his absence from

the Province, the Deputy Speaker may give notice, and thereupon the House shall

meet at the time and date stated by the notice of the proposed sitting.

I move that this House do now adjourn. Merry Christmas, and

to all a good night.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before putting the motion to adjourn, the

Chair would also like to join with the House Leaders and the Member for St.

John's East in wishing all members of the House and their families a very Merry

Christmas and a happy and healthy New Year, and to my good friend, Mr. Oates, I

want to thank him for his service and wish him well in his retirement.

On motion, House adjourned until the call of the Chair.