The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

Before we begin the routine proceedings, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the Speaker's gallery, the Deputy Ombudsman from the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Brent Parfitt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I want to welcome to the gallery, fourteen, Grades VII, VIII and IX students from Fatima Academy in St. Bride's accompanied by their Principal, Mr. Hubert McGrath and teachers, Gordon Pike and Bridget Power and bus driver, Rodney Morrissey.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I want to remind hon. members, as part of the Christmas Lights Across Canada Program, there will be a tree lighting ceremony this evening at the steps of the Confederation Building, and the festivities begin at 6:45 with the Salvation Army Citadel Band and the lights will be switched on by the hon. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation at 7:15 p.m. and refreshments will be served and everyone is welcome to come out and help kick off the Christmas season.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have more questions about the Chretièn Government's proposed reforms to UI, the conversion of UI to EI; I would like to be able to put the questions to the Premier, but the Premier is still over in Europe. Mr. Speaker, instead, I will put the questions to the Minister of Education and Training who seems to have taken over the job of the superfluous Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Education and Training to confirm that the Chretièn Government, in its EI proposal, has begun a savage abandonment of disabled people. Will the minister confirm that under the EI proposal most disabled people who now qualify for unemployment insurance benefits will be abandoned, that there will be no more so-called special benefits?

MR. TOBIN: Get up Murphy, come on, answer it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on boy stand up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education and Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I probably would not couch the situation in the same -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: - in the same language that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition used, but I will say this -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members to give the minister an opportunity to answer the question that has been asked.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have noticed over the past little while, the Opposition seems to be more interested in asking questions than they are to listen to the answers.

I will tell the hon. member that she full-well knows that the federal government has introduced legislation which will have a negative impact on parts of this Province, there is no doubt about that. Now, we have to look at step two and see how we can salvage that. We have to see where the legislation goes. At this stage it is legislation which has been introduced into the House. It will no doubt go through the Committee stage and some day there will be legislation proclaimed. But the details of that, Mr. Speaker, we will have to wait and see what they are.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the Minister of Education and Training, the details are already available. The bill has been made public and the provisions gut the disabled. Will the minister answer my question and indicate that the EI proposal abandons people and leaves out in the cold just about all the disabled people who now qualify for unemployment insurance? What is he going to do about it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member answered her own question. She said that the bill has been made public. I assume she can read, and she can read it just as well as anybody else.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I can read, and I've read that there will be no more special benefits and that disabled people are virtually left out. A supplementary for the minister. Will the minister confirm that the federal government will be slashing funding for higher education and training for disabled people, that there will be a significant reduction in federal funding for the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons program, known as the VRDP program? What is the minister going to do about that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Training.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the member from the Burin Peninsula doesn't take those questions as seriously as his Leader does.

As a result of the legislation which was introduced into the House of Commons a few days ago there will be drastic changes made to many of the programs we now have. There is no doubt about that. It is not my duty or responsibility to stand up and defend what the federal government is doing. It can defend its own actions. What we will have to do is try to get the full knowledge of those changes, determine what impact they will have on the Province, and hopefully find a way that we could deal with them, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister of Education and Training, isn't it your job to fight for the thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians including the disabled people in this Province who are going to be badly hurt or abandoned by the federal government through the UI-EI conversion? Why aren't you speaking up on behalf of your Province the way Frank McKenna is fighting for New Brunswick?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Training.

MR. DECKER: What the hon. member should know is that there is a difference between fighting and posturing. It is quite easy and simple to get up and posture and wave your arms and do all these things, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member can be assured, as the people of this Province can be assured, that the government of this Province will do all that can be done to protect the interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker, but that does not mean political posturing which simply serves to make a fool of her and a fool of the rest of us.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask a question to the government about a matter over which they have full control. Let me ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation about facilities for community organizations who provide programs and services for disabled people. Let me ask the minister in particular about the Longside Club here in St. John's, will the minister put a halt to his decision to callously and heartlessly put the Longside Club out in the cold by tearing down the building they now occupy and will the minister alter his plans for Philip Place which is now being fitted up for government offices? Will the minister now dedicate part of Philip Place for community organizations including the Longside Club since there are now 390 fewer public servants to house in offices?

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

MR. EFFORD: I thought I was listening to myself back in 1984-85 that time. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is starting to learn. She must be reading Hansard from back in '85 to '89. I wrote a number of questions like that.

The last part of the question of hers is about Philip Place, absolutely not. I am wondering why she got to underline a reason for one of her Tory buddies who is getting revenues from rental accommodations. We will be taking them out of there, putting them into Philip Place and saving the Province $20 million. That may be one of the reasons why you are asking the question.

As far as the Longside Club is concerned, we are working with the Longside Club. We are very interested in making sure that they get suitable accommodations. Number one, I have already extended the date of the demolition of that particular building to the end of this year. The reason why we have to demolish that building is because it is not now safe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: This was quite some time ago, some several months ago we extended this, when we had already given a date.

MS VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Do you want the question answered or not? If you want the question answered, I will answer it, if not, I will sit down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to get to his answer.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, we have already told them that we will help them find alternate accommodations. The building they are in is not fit for occupation. We have told them that in lieu of finding a suitable place quickly, we will store their equipment and whatever things they have that they would ordinarily move. Until they find a building, we will store for them. So I am not going to put them on the street in the dead of winter as the hon. member is saying.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that you might think she was concerned about the Ashley rental properties around the Province. That is probably what he is concerned about.

I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations and I sincerely hope that the Government House Leader will allow him to answer this question. The minister has introduced a piece of legislation in this House that will legalize Sunday shopping, and many people in this Province have been expressing concern regarding this issue for various reasons.

The minister stated that he made the decision in response to representation made by businesses. I would like to ask the minister: Would he would name the businesses that asked him to have shops open on Sundays?

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

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

Perhaps I should answer the last question first. If I were to name all the businesses who have asked me and colleagues to open, perhaps Question Period would go on until 8:00 or 9:00 o'clock tonight.

MS VERGE: By leave!

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West to let the minister answer his question.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, and he was a previous minister of Cabinet, when a bill comes before the House and goes on the Order Paper it is only second reading, and the Government House Leader may never call the bill. If it is called, the hon. member, as all hon. members, will have appropriate time to debate the bill. Now, if the member wants to quote from one article in the paper, perhaps he needs to quote from the editorial.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, `Newfoundland businesses will be undermined; the national change will take will every penny out of this Province if government permits Sunday shopping' - the Independent Business Association. Peter O'Brien -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - from the Atlantic region called it (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that he is on a supplementary. In any event, he should not be quoting from a newspaper.

MR. SULLIVAN: We will table the paper.

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

The Federation of Labour is opposed to this as well as the business community. I want to ask the minister: Does he have any concern, any concern whatsoever, about the people in this Province who will be forced to work probably seven days a week, in some cases, for the minimum wage - $4.75 an hour? Is the minister concerned about that?

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

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

First of all, let me say to the hon. member, that is the same individual he quotes from who had 7,000 jobs available for Newfoundlanders and they couldn't find appropriate Newfoundlanders to take the jobs. If that member wants to quote Mr. O'Brien, sobeit.

Secondly, let me say to the hon. member, number one, I have a meeting scheduled tonight at 7:30 with the Newfoundland Federation of Labour. I will discuss the issue with them and hear their concerns.

Thirdly, let me say to the hon. minister that this government has brought in -

AN HON. MEMBER: Member.

MR. MURPHY: Hon. member, that is right.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It won't be long before he will be a minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: - that the Labour Standards Act that this government has modified and changed to protect employees in this Province is still in place, and employees will be protected.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I quoted one word that Peter O'Brien said; the rest was by a different group altogether.

Mr. Speaker, it was the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations on CBC Radio who referred to him as: `my good friend, Peter, whom I know personally,' in a conversation, so don't get on with that old –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations: Will he name the top three businesses in this Province that asked him to go ahead with Sunday shopping? Will he tell us if they are national chains or if they are Newfoundland companies? That is what I ask the minister. And I will ask the minister, in my final supplementary: Will the minister put in place a system where he will withdraw this from the Order Paper for at least three months to let the people of this Province have input into it, and if he is not prepared to do that, will he refer it to a committee of the House?

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

MR. MURPHY: First of all, let me say the hon. member is correct. I did refer in an interview the other morning to my friend Peter O'Brien. The reason I did that was I don't want to fault with my mother, because Mr. O'Brien happens to be my first cousin, so I was very cognizant of that. I didn't want to start any family problems. Not that I agree with anything Mr. O'Brien had to say, I can assure the hon. member. Secondly, let me say to the hon. member that if he wants to quote from the paper it was only the other day that the last survey that was done indicated nearly 70 per cent of the population of the Province were in favour of Sunday shopping.

Let me remind the hon. member that this government has not put a bill forward saying that Sunday shopping is a must. What we are saying is - and people know, and we've told people. The House Leader has told people, questions have been asked by the hon. Member for Kilbride - time and time again, that there are too many regulations. Business and the public have said: Get the regulations off our back. That is what this government intends to do. We intend to let business go on.

The member also knows that there are many abuses of the Shops' Closing Act going on Sunday after Sunday.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: Well, let me say to the hon. member -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. member to finish his answer.

MR. MURPHY: - that it is extremely difficult to get out there and monitor every store and every issue. He also knows -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: - that there are many stores out there -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. member to finish his answer quickly, please.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I could go on and on, of course.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Health. On April 1 the Department of Health took over the Enriched Needs program from the Department of Social Services. The minister stated in this House that his legal advice indicates that appeals under this program cannot be heard by the Department of Social Services appeal board. Yet, as minister you did not put in place an appeals mechanism to deal with the ever-increasing number of people who want to appeal their assessment.

In fact, on October 23 in this House you said and I quote: "...the mechanism is being put in place as we speak, to ensure that appeals can be dealt with if they come forward and that they can be heard in a timely and in a reasonable fashion." I ask the minister, after almost nine months of your administration of this Enriched Needs program - will the minister inform this House if that independent appeals mechanism is now in place similar to the one that operated under social services and could he tell us when that committee was appointed?

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

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

The Enriched Needs program did come over to health about nine months ago. Originally we had thought it was possible to use the same appeals mechanism that social services had in place to hear appeals on Enriched Needs. Through the process of consultation by that appeals board to their independent legal advice, they were advised that that could not happen so we set about to put in an appropriate new appeals mechanism. As a result of going about that, we have now determined that in fact we can, I believe, use the appeals mechanism that is in place by virtue of Cabinet directive and that is in essence where we are with the issue at the moment. So the bottom line is that there is an appeals mechanism in place for people who want to appeal any assessment that they dispute under the Enriched Needs program at the moment. Nobody is, nobody will, nobody can be denied the avenue of appeal as is sort of suggested in the question.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If that is the case, I say minister, why did a community health board of St. John's send out recently, last week and the week before and continue to send out letters with this exact wording; `Community health, St. John's region, currently awaits direction from the director of continuing care, Department of Health, regarding a second level appeal mechanism.' That is a quote, I say to the minister.

Now, I have received numerous calls from families who have been unable to get an appeal. An eighty-two year old woman, who lives alone, receives five hours of care per day under Enriched Needs, has fallen three times, she has diabetes that is not controlled –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary and there should be no preamble.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I am saying this lady was found by an Enriched Needs worker in the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question, he is on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Does the minister think it is fair that a woman receiving five hours of care, found by an Enriched Needs worker in a comatose position, had to be brought to a hospital, in emergency for two weeks, is appropriate use of this Enriched Needs Program and who cannot even appeal those five hours when she is in a severe medical condition and had to be hospitalized?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated to the hon. member, there is an appropriate, easily available method of appeal in place, as we speak, to address any level of appeal that a person wishes to bring forward. If there is somebody who feels that they are denied the appeals process by virtue of not knowing how to go about it, I would be happy, through my officials or even on a direct basis, to lend them assistance. I know, Mr. Speaker, of no individual in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to my knowledge, who has been denied an appeals process under the Enriched Needs Program. I don't know of one. If there is one that is one too many and I would ask the member to make me aware of it so that I can ensure that it is dealt with expeditiously.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I received three calls alone today and I will give the minister and the media the names of families of these people. People are living alone, five hours a day with diabetes, nurses have to go in twice to give needles and she was found in a comatose position and lying on the floor. Now I say to the minister, that is not acceptable and his own community health board sent letters to those families telling them there is no second level of appeal in place, I say to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister, how can the minister justify spending $7.5 million to keep fifty medically discharged people in hospitals here in the city on a daily basis when he could care for these same people in their homes at a cost of $2.5 million?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member, as he usually does when he gets to the third supplementary, usually gets into using information that is grossly inaccurate, frivolous, completely distorted to say the least, totally false to say the worst, and today in him indicating that $7.5 million is being spent on an ongoing basis to care for fifty people in a situation where they could probably be cared for with a few hours help out in their home is totally a false proposition.

People who are in medically discharged beds in hospitals awaiting placement are not people who can go back to their home to receive Enriched Needs. They have already been assessed as having been people in need of long-term care, not community based services and Enriched Needs programs, so the proposition that he puts forward is falsely based, inappropriately premised, and has no validity in fact.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, I think on Friday last there was an announcement that the Bell Island and Long Island ferry services were getting a rate reduction, the most notable being the car and driver rate, down from $9 round trip to $5. Would the minister care to indicate: What is the commuter rate - either a commuter worker or a commuter student - for the Bell Island service?

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

MR. EFFORD: If I remember correctly, and I don't have the exact numbers here in front of me, the commuter rate now has gone from fifty cents to $1 for a commuter, including the car; that is either a student or a worker going to and from Bell Island for work.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay on a supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I am told it is a $2 round trip charge.

I have had great difficulty getting detailed written information from the minister's Grand Falls regional office as to what is the rate card for Long Island. Can the minister explain why, when the people from Bell Island were doing the round trip commuter thing for $2, the people on Long Island, at least up until yesterday, were paying $4.50 for the same service, with two islands in the same rate category?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. When we applied the rates to Bell Island, the commuter rate was applied to Bell Island because of the large numbers of people working from Bell Island in St. John's and surrounding areas. We were never approached from people living on the other islands about a special commuter rate, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh.

MR. EFFORD: Hold on, now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, there is not, but if there are people working on Long Island, Fogo Island, Change Islands, or any other isolated community, travelling to and from work, they can also get the commuter rate.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay on a supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased with the minister's explanation, and somewhat less than pleased with the difficulty I have had to get this information. Will he please instruct his officials to carry out government policy as enunciated? Trying to get information on an actual rate card for Long Island has been difficult, if not impossible, and one has to wonder if something else involving politics is going on.

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

MR. EFFORD: Far be it for me to carry out something with politics involved, but I must say I learned very, very well, from 1985-1989, to what extent the hon. members opposite could carry out political decisions.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, and concerns also the Sunday Shops' Closing Act introduced.

This has been opposed by almost all retailers in the Province who have spoken on the issue. It will be more expensive to meet the competition, with no advantage. It is opposed by workers because of the requirements to work on Sunday, and it disrupts their work schedules. The question is, and the people of Newfoundland want to know: Whose tune is the government dancing to on this? Was it the request of the Price Club, whose grand opening the Premier participated in? Is this a favour by the Premier and this government to them, that will have the effect of increasing their competitive advantage over other smaller retailers? Is that whose tune he is dancing to?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say to the hon. members, as I said to the Member for Burin - Placentia West, this particular bill has not gone into third reading, has not gone to committee. It is on the Order Paper; it has not been called.

Let me say to the hon. member, if he looks at the bill, he knows and understands that if the retail trade does not want to open it does not have to open; it is as simple as that. This government is not telling the retail trade out there to open. And the other question that the member asked is quite simple; the Labour Standards Act, a good Labour Standards Act, I might add, protects all the employees out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East, on a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister and the government well know that this legislation will serve the interests of a few very large retailers who have a particular marketing strategy -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. HARRIS: Is the minister willing to acknowledge that this serves very few big retailers at the expense of all the rest, and will force the rest of them to get involved. Aside from his comments about the bill being only at second reading, will the minister say that he is prepared to withdraw the bill and not have it debated in this House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: No, Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not going to withdraw the bill. This is a bill that has been put forward by my colleagues and myself, and I have no - but let me say to the member that tonight at 7:30, I am meeting with the Federation and the retail workers' president, to listen to their concerns. I am sure the hon. member knows - it has been said time and time again about government and government over-regulation - the member knows exactly why this piece of legislation is here. We will do everything to accommodate and listen to people in a conciliatory way, and if and when the time comes that we pass the bill, then fine, the member can make his comments then.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me have another question at the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Let me ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, based on what has been said today -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, and I ask hon. members to my left, to let him ask his question.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in relation to what has happened in the past couple of days, particularly with the Federation of Labour, and with various business people who have been calling our offices this morning, people who have been involved in this Shop Opening Act in Ontario and Nova Scotia for a three-month period -

MS VERGE: And employees.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I said that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - will the minister agree to meet with any groups who are concerned and will he agree to meet with the Chamber of Commerce and business people in this city who request a meeting with him, to discuss this before he has it debated in the House?

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

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. member, I don't need to apologize to any group out there who have asked to have a meeting with me. I have always been accessible.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) see what happens.

MR. MURPHY: No, no.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we proceed, I would like to welcome to the gallery on behalf of all members, the town councillors from Nain, Mayor Richard Pamak, Councillor Gary Baikie, and Town Manager, Vicki Williams.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 405 residents of Trepassey, Biscay Bay, Portugal Cove South, and St. Shotts in my district, Mr. Speaker. The prayer of the petition is as follows: We, the people of Trepassey and surrounding communities, who use the Cappahayden and Peter's River barrens as a lifeline to hospitals, petition you and your department, Mr. Efford, to reconsider your decision to cut the heavy-duty diesel mechanic's position from the Trepassey depot for the 1995-'96 winter season. Last winter, the employee in this position worked extensive overtime hours, along with his regular hours, to repair and maintain the snow clearing equipment so that we, the people of this area, would not be isolated from essential services.

Mr. Speaker, part of the petition reads: it takes one minute to write a safety rule, it takes one hour to hold a safety meeting, it takes one week to plan a safety program, it takes one month to put one in place, it takes one year to win a safety award, it takes one lifetime to be a safe worker, and it takes one second to destroy it all with an accident. Please do not let this happen to one of our residents this winter while waiting for the services of a mechanic either from St. Joseph's or Renews to repair the equipment necessary to maintain our highways for the safe use of our ambulances, school buses, fire trucks, and other motorists.

Mr. Speaker, this issue came forward when I asked questions in the House a couple of weeks ago concerning the taking away of a mechanic at the Trepassey depot. It is a very important issue, not only for my district, but indeed, for districts right across the Province who have seen massive cutbacks, massive cutbacks by this government and massive cutbacks by this minister and his department as he takes away people from these jobs. Safety is the largest concern being put forward by people.

I am sure the minister is fully aware that we have to put up with many harsh winters here, and down on the Trepassey barrens it is no different. We have schoolchildren who are travelling back and forth, we have fire trucks, ambulances, and even the general public travel these roads on a continuous basis. My understanding now is, from information I received over the past couple of days, that there will be a mechanic in Trepassey working from Renews. I would like the minister to confirm that, if he could, when he stands up to answer to my petition, if he so does, but that still does not relay the concern of the people in Trepassey, that the mechanic is from the community, is close by, is there on a minute's notice and they do not have to wait for hours for a mechanic to arrive to fix a piece of equipment.

I understand the restraints government is under. I understand the dollars they are trying to save, but we must put the safety of people first. We must put the safety of our children first, and definitely put the safety of the people who work on those trucks, and on those machines, first also. This situation is not unique to the Trepassey barrens and the Trepassey area. From calls and stories in the media over the past couple of weeks we have seen this situation and the problems that are arising throughout this Province because of the cutbacks by this department.

The minister keeps sitting in his seat and standing in his place and saying there are no cutbacks, but I beg to differ with no cutbacks. We have seen cutbacks, a couple of hundred people laid off who were wingmen, and we have seen other people that are being passed down the line. Mr. Speaker, those are cutbacks. If a person loses a job, it is a cutback. The minister may want to call it something different but it is definitely a cutback. The minister has lashed out on the workers of this Province in taking away the wingmen. He has taken away other jobs such as the mechanics job in Trepassey. Even though the minister doesn't want to agree with it, we are seeing cutbacks that are affecting the safety of the people who are driving on the roads in this Province and that are affecting the safety of not only children, but every man, woman, and child who is on the road.

I bring this petition forward today on behalf of over 400 residents. I believe it is one of the largest petitions that has come forward from my district over the last three years. These 400 residents are sending a note of concern to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation today asking him to address this situation that they find themselves in in Trepassey, and to try to find an answer that will be satisfactory to the people of the Trepassey area.

Mr. Speaker, this issue is not to be taken lightly. I ask the minister to consider how sincere the people of Trepassey are, in their concern. They are very sincere. I say to the minister, all that is not sincere are the efforts of the minister. The minister can laugh and joke about the concerns that are being raised in this Province now by people in relation to safety on the highways, but I say it is about time the minister started taking these issues very seriously. I say that the issues are very, very serious.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, he said something that I wouldn't repeat in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, I'm too honourable for that.

I bring this issue forward on behalf of the people of Trepassey and the other communities, and I ask that the minister take it very seriously -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MANNING: - and put back in Trepassey a mechanic who will serve the people of that area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland, speaking to the petition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support this petition. I am very familiar with the area that is being served here and by the request in the petition.

The area of Trepassey and Portugal Cove South - it is a long distance to the next community. From the depot in Renews, there are fifty-some kilometres of road that is very treacherous road, that is difficult to navigate in the wintertime, one is not able to drive on that road - not, say, move a piece of heavy equipment that needs mechanical repairs, by a flatbed out to the White Hills or Renews or St. Joseph's, wherever they are going to move it.

The sole mechanic - it is important - and with much of the equipment, in spite of what the minister states, about how modern the equipment is, and it doesn't break down. I can tell you, if you are using -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You said the reason we don't need these people is because we bought modern equipment, warranties are covered on this equipment, and it doesn't cost us. Now, we have seventeen-year old ploughs and twenty-some that these mechanics have worked on for a number of years. They know the machine, they know what is wrong with the machine, and they know how to deal with it. We are going to have, if it is a tough winter, the worst road conditions ever in history.

While the minister is on the topic, I will say to him that last year we had one of the heaviest snowfalls in some time. You look at your departmental budget. You spent less last winter on Snow and Ice Control than you did in the previous year.

MR. EFFORD: That is not correct.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am going on the Budget. Mr. Speaker, I am going by this document here called Estimates 1995 that is filed by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board on behalf of the departments here. Those are the figures I am using. It is under Snow and Ice Control under Works, Services and Transportation,. The minister can open it up and find it. Maybe I will tell him the page it is on, then he might find it.

I say to the minister, they are ignoring and putting at risk people who travel that area. Last year, I will say to the minister, they spent $22,347,000. This year, they are budgeting for $21.2 million. Three years ago, I say, they spent more on Snow and Ice Control - because I went back and researched the figures - than they spent last year in one of the worst winters. No wonder we are having accidents on our highways. No wonder we are shutting down highways and telling people not to navigate on highways, because we are not putting the machinery on those roads. There are more lost days of productivity, more days schools are closed due to weather, more days businesses are closed due to weather, because this minister is cutting back on winter spending and laying off people who are going to keep the communication lines open for businesses.

Now, to come in from Trepassey, it is about 100 miles. We are looking at about 160 kilometres to come in from Trepassey by ambulance. There is only one doctor in the area. There are no hospitals or clinics like we have had in the past. There are a single doctor and two nurses, I believe. I'm not sure but that it is down to one in Trepassey.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It clears the road for an ambulance to get through, I say to the minister. If he doesn't know, we've had enough serious accidents on highways without the minister making light of the role that those mechanics play in helping to keep the machinery up to safety standards and out on the highways so we can clear those highways to get ambulances, school buses, and other people commuting to work and to other functions. That is important, I say to the minister.

There is a price that will be paid by cutbacks. We can only go so far in the law of diminishing returns, and we have gone beyond it. Mr. Speaker, when we are spending less today than we did three years ago on Snow and Ice Control - and last winter when we had one of the worst winters we spent less money. I tell the minister to go back to your department, I have the figures for the last three years. I say to the minister, go back to the Department of Finance and tell them they are the wrong estimates. They are tabling the wrong information here in the House of Assembly. It is about time the minister took it seriously, getting on with his laughing and his mockery of people out in rural Newfoundland who need this service and making light of it. They need these mechanics to keep the equipment running.

What they are going to do now, Mr. Speaker, if a machine breaks down up in that area they are going to load it on a flatbed, they are going to drive it for hours, if the weather conditions are suitable because we only want the machinery when the weather is bad. We don't need it when the weather is good, when the weather is bad we need it and that is when we are going to have the problems. It does not break down if it does not get used and the weather is good. I say to the minister, we are going to have a severe problem. I am confident, I am sure people in his department have second thoughts about the cost efficiency of this decision. It is a very ill though out process. It is going to cost more dollars in lost productivity conveying machinery all around the Avalon Peninsula, the mechanics at the White Hills and mechanics in Renews and it is not going to be cost effective and I bet -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: - in the future that decision will be reversed in another year. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what to do with the hon. members opposite, how to get them to understand there are no, no, cutbacks in our winter operations, none, absolutely none. We are providing the same level of service this year as we did last year and previous years depending on the weather conditions. If the weather conditions cause us to spend $20 million, $30 million, $40 million or whatever the amount of money they request us to spend, we will spend, depending on the climatic conditions.

I thought, when I came in the House of Assembly today, with the sun shining all the morning, rain last night, there would be no petitions and no questions about winter maintenance but I can see the hon. member ran out of questions today in Question Period because there was no snow last night and then they resorted to Question Period again. Now, that is the only reason.

Now, let me say this to the hon. members - probably it is my Port de Grave accent, they don't understand it but let me say it slowly, let me try to keep the H's in place and let me try to say it slowly - and the hon. member has a bit of an accent himself - but here are the statistics, Mr. Speaker, in 1983, Peckford administration, masses amount of people - in fact, more people then you could see snowflakes most of the time, working in the government system. Ploughs everywhere, equipment everywhere, friends of the government working on their own private equipment but nevertheless lots of equipment; 230,000 vehicles on the highway for this Province, all vehicles, 103 fatalities, 1983; 1994, 415,579 vehicles on the highway, with all the cutbacks that they are talking about, and thirty-five fatalities. If I can get my mathematics correct, that is sixty-eight less fatalities last year then this year. Now where is all the neglect of our maintaining our highways? Now they are telling me the only way we can keep safe highways from Trepassey to St. Joseph's is hire on a mechanic. Now just imagine, Mr. Speaker, hiring on a mechanic will solve all the climatic conditions on that stretch of highway coming down there. Now that is the thinking of the Tories opposite. Make no wonder this Province is $7 billion in debt after seventeen years of thinking like that. It is just pointless to talk to them and explain to them, they just don't understand, thick, thick, thick.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today is Late Show Day and I assume there will be the usual dissatisfied members opposite, if not, we have not been doing our job over here. The order of business for today, Sir, will be to address two pieces of legislation. The first is to ask the House to deal with the committee stage on Bill 32 which is Order 22 but before Your Honour calls that let me also go on to advise the House that once we dispose of the committee stage on that bill, we are going to go into the debate on the election's act which is Order 26 on the Order Paper. If it will help things to move on, I can say to my friends opposite, we cannot have the general election until we get this through. So the quicker we get it through the quicker we will get on with it.

With that said Your Honour would you please resolve the House into Committee of the Whole?

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Barrett): Order, please!

Bill No. 32, clause 1; the hon. the Government House - Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, not quite yet. As soon as we get the Elections Act passed now, and the electoral boundaries in place, it won't be long after that, and I doubt if it will be you, Mr. Chairman, calling me the Government House Leader. I don't really think it will be. There will be someone else in the Chair, of course, so don't be too -

MR. ROBERTS: It won't be the hon. lady from Humber East (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: In the Chair, you mean? No, she won't be in the Chair; she will be in the Premier's chair. She won't be in Europe, I say to the Government House Leader. She won't be in Europe on a Christmas shopping spree. She will be here administering the business of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: It won't be as Premier.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, as Premier.

Speaking of the Act Respecting The Executive Council, and the creation of government departments, assignment of the powers and responsibilities of ministers - assignment of the powers and responsibilities of ministers, including the First Minister - powers and responsibilities of the First Minister, the Premier, certainly one of the responsibilities of the Premier is not every year in December, at this time, to go overseas Christmas shopping, on a jaunt. That will be eliminated when the Leader of the Opposition becomes the Premier of the Province, the First Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I say to the Member for LaPoile, he talks about the King heir.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: We will call them Queen heir then.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, it will be the Queen heir. It will be the First Minister. I was going to say it would be the First Lady, but it would be the first lady to be First Minister in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Don't tell me you were over there with Doug Moores.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) and her consort is called Lady Mayoress.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Lady Mayoress.

Were you are the residence, I ask the Government House Leader, at the Mayoress residence?

MR. ROBERTS: Downstairs only.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Of course. Well, I was upstairs, I say to the Government House Leader. I was upstairs in the very house that the Government House Leader -

MR. ROBERTS: The Lord Mayor was downstairs while the hon. member was upstairs.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no, no. That is quite interesting, I say to the Government House Leader. I was there, actually, and met with the Merchant Venturers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, at that very house.

MR. ROBERTS: The Merchant Venturers are the same (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I know about them; I met them. I met them at the Mayor's residence, actually, the Lord and the Lady Mayoress of Bristol. I was there.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: All I am saying is that I was there - it was quite interesting - when I was Minister of Culture, to try to start this process. Now that will tell you something about how long it takes, but I remember that very well.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should have jumped over that bridge there. Did you see that big bridge?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I have a picture of it on my living room wall, I say; they gave me a picture of the bridge, a very nice picture, very nice.

You talk about things being different, and mayors, and how people are treated. When I went there, as a matter of fact, the mayor sent his chauffeur out to pick me up, big, big chauffeur, big car, and a big chauffeur with the white gloves and the hat. I was really taken aback.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I am serious. There is one thing it did, though; it showed me the comparison in how they treat their elected officials, mayors and whoever else and how different it was, seriously.

AN HON. MEMBER: I agree, (inaudible) John Murphy (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, he is almost as bad now but, can you imagine if he were allowed, or the taxpayers, but I won't get into that. But it was quite a comparison, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: It really was.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It really was, to sit there and to see them. When I was there, there were three or four servants, I think there were four workers there, and in the morning they were -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They were all dressed alike in the daytime, and in the night they changed to another dress, and when the Mayor and the Mayoress went to bed - went to the top of the stairs, they would all be - this is true. By the way, I was totally amazed by it. The servants we call them, the workers would stand at the bottom of the stairs - and they would go to the top of the stairs, the Lord Mayor and the Lady Mayoress - and they would say goodnight and bow. That's true.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) for them?

MR. MURPHY: It is a good question, I say to the Government House Leader. Perhaps we should have a day a week for the government to ask the Opposition questions.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I would say there are (inaudible) up there but they are not bowing.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no. The Member for Eagle River thinks that we are like they are in his caucus. No, no, the problem is with your caucus, not with ours. There is so much division and so much animosity, Mr. Chairman, and so many over there trying to get into the Premier's seat. I saw the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board there again today with a - it must be the leadership hairdo. When I saw the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board come through the door today, I said: Well, there is the leadership hairdo, it has to be the leadership hairdo, he can't change it any more.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible) Monday night (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Monday night when he (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: For the poll? What poll? The only poll I hear you talk about was Market Quest, done a couple days after we had the big storm, and you allowed the stores to open on Sunday. The Market Quest poll, that you are referring to, by the way, was done a couple of days after the storm. People were left in the cold for the best part of the week.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh no, no. The memories of the storm were still in their minds, minister, you can squirm all you like, that's what he is quoting now.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Tell us about that meeting you had on Monday night.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I had four meetings on Monday night, I tell the Member for Eagle River, and a couple of those meetings I am not going to share with the member. But, Mr. Chairman, talking about the Executive Council bill, Bill 32.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Eagle River is just drowning me out.

MR. DUMARESQUE: How many do you have now?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: How many - Mr. Chairman, I don't know what he is talking about, I don't know what he refers to. He asked me how many do I have? I mean, you have to be careful what you are asking me, because you don't know what answer you will get.

MR. DUMARESQUE: How many do you have now that -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: For what?

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: None.

MR. DUMARESQUE: None.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: None. You are confused. It is your caucus that that is happening (inaudible).

Now, Mr. Chairman, we have no problem with the Executive Council bill.

It is a good debate, Mr. Chairman, going on between the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations and the Member for Ferryland, they are having a very good debate and I am enjoying it immensely. I just wish, if only they could be recognized so we could pick them up in Hansard, then we would all read it tomorrow and be privy to it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, maybe not two but at least one of them. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is having difficulty being recognized these days because he is not permitted to stand very often. He is talking about ministers and powers and responsibilities of ministers that we are talking about in this bill, but the poor, old Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, has had his power taken away from him. The power to get to his feet has been taken away from him, and I pity him really, it is not fair. But the Minister of Education and Training, for whatever reason, is the Chairman of the Social Policy Committee, I don't know what's going on here and it is really - I don't know why the Premier doesn't make him minister for all those departments that the Social Policy Committee encompasses.

AN HON. MEMBER: He can have Justice whenever he wants.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: He can have Justice.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Does that fall under it, Justice, in social policy, does it, really?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Employment falls under it I guess, health, social services, education, of course, which he -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Health, yes, I know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Social Services.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I know, Education. Works, Services and Transportation falls under -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Resource. Speaking of resources, if only, Mr. Chairman, we could give the minister some resources, like salt. I had a couple of calls from (inaudible) in the Province the last couple of days. They have been watching the news and watching the group down in Baie Verte concerned about the bus, and the other things that are going on about the Province with safety on our highways and snow clearing and salting and sanding. They said they watched the minister - John Efford they called him - watched John Efford. They don't call him the hon. the minister or Minister or Mr. Minister. John Efford. On -

AN HON. MEMBER: No respect.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, in the House we call each other hon. members and minister, but you know how people are when they are frustrated, they don't have a lot of respect for anyone. But they said: He is talking about all the salt he is putting on the highways. They said: It must be Sifto table salt that the minister is using this winter and he must have a salt-shaker. He must be going around with a salt-shaker, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: The holes are blocked.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The minister is saying there are tons of salt -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, it is plugged up. The salt must have got damp and plugged up the holes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, Mr. Chairman, but we don't have any great -

MR. DUMARESQUE: Is the Leader of the Opposition going to Boston this March, do you know?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, again the Member for Eagle River talks about his own party. The Leader who went to Boston was from the Liberal Party. They gave him a donation out of the caucus fund to go to the Boston seafood show.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He wasn't leader, that's right. He went away Leader and came back leader-less, or less-leader, or whatever word it is.

MR. DUMARESQUE: We showed you how to do it, now you do it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No one wants to take a page out of that book, I say to the Member for Eagle River. He wasn't part of it. The Member of Eagle River wasn't part of that.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I was, I was on the board at the time.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Board of what?

MR. DUMARESQUE: The executive board of the party.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Don't brag about it, if you were ever on that. Don't brag that you were ever on the executive board of the Liberal Party. But he is talking about the wrong party.

AN HON. MEMBER: We had to remove the Leader of the Party, so (inaudible) came back here.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Poor old Justice Barry, he is now, went off to Boston to the Boston seafood show, and while he was gone there was big coup, a palace coup. How well I remember it.

MR. SULLIVAN: It was a tea party back in Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: A turr party.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A turr party, yes, they had turr. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation brought in the turrs and they cooked them up down at the Member for Twillingate's house. That is where the big turr supper took place. While he was in Boston eating seafood and they were in Mr. Carter's house having turrs and all kinds of vegetables, the thing that got the biggest carving was the then-Leader of the Opposition. He got carved while he was in Boston.

MR. ROBERTS: I can tell (inaudible) Leader of the Opposition (inaudible) occupational hazard, as his Leader is finding out.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I would say that of those in the House at present, sitting now, I mean now that is present here, not members, that the person who has the most experience in that is the Government House Leader. He knows the perils and the dangers and the trials and tribulations of being - I mean, he went to more leadership contests than - well, almost as many as Mr. Smallwood, I suppose.

MR. ROBERTS: No, more.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: More?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Really?

AN HON. MEMBER: He only ran twice.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: So how many times did you run, then?

MR. ROBERTS: I ran three times - won twice and lost once.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is the one that you lose that you remember. Is that the one with Bill Rowe and Neary and those, the one you lost?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: To Bill Rowe.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Neary did the number on you.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Maybe, I don't know. Sometimes I wonder about Mr. Rowe's position, though. He seems to enjoy what he is doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope he is (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He mustn't enjoy it too much, he ran in 1993.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What I'm saying is, you know, he does a good job in what he does out there, I must say that for him, and he has a big listening audience. It seems like a fair situation, I would say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Neary, well, I see him on the panel and see him at the demonstration for Bell Island with his cowboy hat and his dark glasses and his turtlenecks. He must be doing alright, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: For who?

MR. ROBERTS: Roger (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No we don't. We never know where he is, I say to the Government House Leader. Even when we think we know where Mr. Simmons is we are really not sure. Having said that I talked to the hon. gentleman a couple of days ago on a problem we are having with Revenue Canada with small business. I do not know if any other members opposite are having it. I know I am not being relevant, Mr. Chairman, and I accept your indulgence.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I do not mean it that way. You took it wrong. What I said was that I have had several enquiries from the district, and the Member for Burin - Placentia West has had more, so in the Burin - Placentia region, that office there, I would venture to guess there are fifty to seventy-five that I know of now, small businesses, that are under review by Revenue Canada. They are on hold being reviewed, and it is causing a lot of hardship. That is why I called Mr. Simmons because I wondered if there was something he could do with the federal minister to enquire.

AN HON. MEMBER: Last year there were 5507 cases in this Province and I say there were 3 per cent (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: So it is going to be more than that this year? It has turned into a real problem, and people who for years have done exactly the same as they have done in the last twelve months are being reviewed, interrogated, and whatever else. Very legitimate businesses who have worked hard all their life, and seasonal employment, carpentry and other things, and very good people at their work who have great reputations where they live, are now under review and cannot get benefits. My worst fear is that it will not be resolved to their satisfaction, and I say that quite sincerely. I know we joke across the House lots of times but this is very serious.

Maybe we could talk to that minister about his powers and responsibilities. Maybe the Member for Eagle River could go up to Ottawa. He loves to go to Ottawa. He delights in going to Ottawa. The Premier set him up a little while ago to work on the TAGS problems so maybe he could go up. I am sure you have a trip or two left. I do not know though, when I come to think about it, no, he would not have a trip left.

AN HON. MEMBER: He may go up fulltime.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, he is not going fulltime. He is finished. That is settled. It depends on whether Mr. Cashin says, yes. If Cashin says, no, well then the hon. member might have a chance of going up fulltime, but I sort of sense now that Mr. Cashin is not quite as enthused, but if wants to go up he is going up, Mr. Cashin, but if he says, yes, he is gone.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I do not think so. He will go over big up there, big time, especially with all the overwhelming support from Eagle River. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will soon be going up now. I expect to hear any day now it is part of his responsibilities, covered under this Bill 32, "An Act Respecting The Executive Council," so I am relevant, Mr. Speaker, will be going off to Labrador, to Goose Bay to talk about the Trans Labrador Highway, after that great pronouncement last night in the House of Commons by the Reform Party. The Reform Party are going to complete the Trans Labrador Highway I advise the minister. A great, great statement in the House of Commons last night, I watched it myself.

AN HON. MEMBER: They said there are more roads in Africa than we have in Newfoundland.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The point is the Prime Minister went down and opened a road in Africa built with Canadian money. The Prime Minister of this country, the very same Prime Minister who is taking money out of the pockets of our poor fisherpersons and seasonal workers, by the way, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who pulled money out off our pockets, was down in Africa opening up a road built with Canadian money, and our people down in Labrador do not have a highway to drive over.

I expect you and Mr. Cashin will be going up soon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, the minister can go on all he wants but when the phone rings and says, John, come up I want to see you, then up he goes. Floor number eight, up he goes, I am here to see the Premier. One minute Mr. Efford: John, as part of your responsibility as minister I want you to accompany Mr. Cashin to Labrador. We have to say something about the Trans Labrador Highway. Now you will be going up as part of your responsibility covered under this bill, Executive Council, Bill No. 32.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill, Danny will carry you (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, he won't be allowed. There is one thing about it, the Member for Eagle River will want to support Mr. Cashin and he will pretend publicly to support Mr. Cashin but Mr. Cashin won't let him get too close to him. He won't allow him to get to close to him.

MR. DUMARESQUE: He better not either.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well I don't know what the member means by that. I am not sure what he means by that. You can take that a number of ways. I think I understand what the member means.

MR. MURPHY: No you don't.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What is the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations telling me about the Member for Eagle River when he says I don't understand what he meant? Is he insinuating something?

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I can understand you being sensitive to it because one time before in this House you almost got yourself in trouble about the same subject.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible) carries a one iron.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, the hon. member, I have to ask you where you got it by the way? I have to ask you where you got that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Because I did not know what it looked like before I seen it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There are a lot of things you did not know what it looked like before.

AN HON. MEMBER: I did not even know it existed before (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, but someone told me about it, about you using it and that made me curious. I went out and about looking around but I could not find one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) a short one iron.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But are they all short? I realize why his would be short. I would need a long one iron.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, okay. No, but I hear it is pretty good.

AN HON. MEMBER: Another fellow over here uses one.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, the Premier. Yes I heard the Premier does as well, use a one iron, yes I heard that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) dogs.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, that is what he has been training the Premier's dog with is the one iron, I say. Someone says since the Premier is gone the dog has gotten quite obedient. When you hit him with the one iron the dog really curls up in the corner.

MR. SULLIVAN: I think the dog is training Danny, all he is doing is barking since.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I say if he could have found the Premier's one iron when he was down to the party, I say the Premier's dog would be gone. That is an awful thing for the man to say. What a thing to say about the first minister's dog, seriously. What a threat.

MS COWAN: It is a lovely dog and I have two of them.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But because you got two does not mean the Premier's dog is a lovely dog. Perhaps the Premier's dog will chew the leg off you, I say to the Member for Conception Bay South. I mean there are lovely dogs and there are vicious dogs. Your two dogs are cuddly and of good temperament. I would say, knowing Harry, I would be surprised if Harry is a cuddly dog or has good temperament. I would be very surprised. I would say Harry has a great temper, he yaps at your heels. I would say knowing Harry, he is very authoritative when anyone goes near the Premier's residence. He stands right up on the back paws, the hind legs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Is he? Well maybe I will get the opportunity to meet him this Christmas.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I will take the dog. I will look out for the Premier's dog. I will look out to it just as well as the Member for Eagle River or at least I would not threaten the dog.

MR. ROBERTS: The dog might threaten the hon. gentleman.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, that is what I am thinking. Well you are agreeing with what I am saying about the temperament of the dog.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Nice dogs in Goose Bay.

MR. ROBERTS: There cannot be a home in Happy Valley - Goose Bay without (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, well I can understand that but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is what I am thinking. That is why you are agreeing with what I am saying about the temperament of the dog.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A lot of nice dogs in Goose Bay?

AN HON. MEMBER: There can't be a home in Happy Valley - Goose Bay without dogs.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I can understand that, but you know something, the place I saw the most dogs in was Garnish. Every home had two or three.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, but knocking on doors during the last election I could not believe there could be so many dogs in one small community, and they were all out chasing me away, every one of them.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Oh, I dare say.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, they all chased me away.

MR. DUMARESQUE: If they had any sense they would.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They did, I say to the Member for Eagle River.

Mr. Chairman, we have no problem with Bill 32, "An Act Respecting The Executive Council". We think what the government is proposing to do in the bill is fine, and a Premier should be able to reorganize the government the way he or she so sees fit, as she will and looks forward to, without having to come here for authorization to make the departments legit, or the powers and responsibilities of the minister.

I think we all agree that this is a good piece of legislation and we should not tie up the business of the House after the next election when the Member for Humber East structures her new Cabinet and the departments of government. We should not have to come here in five or six months after, or three months, dealing with an act to amend this department or that department and other departments.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's in your long-term future?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What is whose long-term future?

AN HON. MEMBER: What's in your long-term future?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What's in it? To sit where the Government House Leader is sitting, within the next -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, for sure, definitely in the long term, but in the next twelve to eighteen months it will be to sit where the Government House Leader sits, and then I will be looking at someone over here like he looks at me, and say: Will he ever sit down and pass this bill?

Having an understanding for what the Government House Leader needs, I think I am a logical choice for the job. It is too bad the hon. lady is not here, but I am sure she is listening to me upstairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: She doesn't listen to you as much as she watches you, Bill.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

MR. ROBERTS: She doesn't listen to you as closely as she watches you.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I don't know about that, now. The Government House Leader is trying to get me into a trap here.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is very astute (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, he is very astute. He has been very astute all of his life.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your leader was there; what are you worrying about?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Your leader was here. (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, that is over and done with.

AN HON. MEMBER: Exactly.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is over and done with. The Member for Humber East is the legitimate leader of the party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Loyola (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no, no. Listen, no person has worked more diligently and been more supportive than the Member for Ferryland.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I will tell you one thing; if there is a page out of anyone's book that all members should take, it is out of this gentleman's book. I am serious. For someone who went through the process, and people who have gone through it personally and been on the ballot can identify with it, and those who have supported people who have been close to them can identify some, but not like the candidates, as the Government House Leader would know, and I have to take my hat off to the man. He got over it very quickly.

MR. TOBIN: Over what?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The loss. He got over it very quickly, and he has gone on about business and been very supportive, and worked very hard for his district and for the caucus, and it shows here in the House. He has the Minister of Health tied in knots day in and day out. He comes into the House trembling. He is frightened to death. When he sees the Member for Ferryland stand in his place, he shivers; you can see him. He just about goes to pieces over there.

With that, Mr. Chairman, that is all we will have to say about Bill 32.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Executive Council." (Bill No. 32)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Would you rise the Committee, please, Sir?

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

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

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the matters to it referred and has passed Bill No. 32 without amendment, and requests leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the amendments to the Elections Act, Bill 23, Order 26 on today's Order Paper.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991". (Bill No. 23).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, thank you, Sir. The bill, while it is a fairly extensive piece of the printer's art, twenty-five pages of text, essentially consists of a series of relatively minor amendments to the Elections Act, 1991. That is the official title of what most of us in our day-to-day work call the new elections act. That is the very modern and updated elections act that was adopted by the House. In fact, to confuse things further, the Elections Act, 1991 I think was adopted in 1992, and is partially in force, and in due course will be just about entirely in force.

The elections act doesn't require any exposition to members of the House. Very simply it is the statute which governs the conduct of elections of members to this House of Assembly, whether that be in a general election or in a by-election. It also governs the holding of a referendum, such as the one which we held in September with respect to Term 17.

The bill itself has been before the House for some considerable time. In fact, I notice it is in my name and I notice that I'm described as the Government House Leader, which was accurate, but that reflects the fact the bill was, I believe, printed and tabled before I returned to Justice in August. So it has been around -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) justice was returned.

MR. ROBERTS: Or before justice was returned to me, I say to my friend for Eagle River. In any event, it has been in the House I believe since June, so members have had ample opportunity I'm sure to go through it and pay what attention they wish to the various clauses and references in it.

The amendments, Sir, fall into three distinct groupings. The first is a series - and I'm not necessarily referring to it chronologically, but the amendments are set out chronologically with respect to the bill itself. That is the drafting style and it is a proper one. The first group of amendments are those which have been made at the request of the Chief Electoral Officer following a very comprehensive review which he has made, in taking advice from solicitors and from other officials as need be, of the new, the 1991, act.

The CEO, Mr. Mitchell, who is well known to members of the House, and members will agree is a master of thorough detail, and a master of doing things properly and according to the rules -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend for Burin - Placentia West, I'm speaking of the Chief Electoral Office, Mr. Mitchell, who is a master of detail, members will acknowledge, including my friends for Grand Bank and Burin - Placentia West. Because we often see him in our dealings on the Internal Economy Committee. The Speaker is above this kind of thing, I say to my friend for Grand Bank.

The Chief Electoral Officer - who is a master, as I've said two or three times, of detail and accuracy and precision, and does things according to the rule book, and makes sure that all of us act according to the rule book, and that is his job and he does it extraordinarily well - has made a very thorough review of the act. A substantial number of these amendments are the result of points which he has brought forward. They've then been vetted by the appropriate officials and they are now before the House in the form of this bill.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we have a number of changes here that were made, or are being made, as the result of a request - and I'm told in each case a unanimous request - of a group known as the Advisory Committee. That Committee consists of the Chief Electoral Officer and two representatives of each of the three registered political parties in this Province. The New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, and the Progressive Conservative Party each have two representatives on this, named I believe by the leader of the party. I'm not sure of that, but my friend for St. John's East, who is of course the Leader of the NDP, confirms that it is in fact the leader who names them. These six people sit with the CEO in a committee which by statute has the right and the obligation to advise on matters relating to the elections act.

In the course of their discussions a number of issues - as we've been working with the new act, a number of issues have come forward and solutions have been identified, and these are now incorporated in this bill. Again I won't list them in detail, but at the appropriate time, if members wish, I can take each - the speaking notes provided me - section and identify where it came from and which of the three groups it falls into, as well as addressing the merits or the issues related to the specific amendment.

The third group of amendments, Sir, are the changes necessary to implement the recommendations of the House's Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, made in a report which they filed on November 3, 1992 as their second report, and that committee was chaired by my friend, the Member for Eagle River and consisted of the present Member for Pleasantville and the present Member for Carbonear, and the former Member for Port au Port, Mr. James Hodder and the former Member for Kilbride, Mr. Robert Alyward neither of whom sought re-election if memory serves me in the last general election, but the committee unanimously, I assume, made their report and they recommended a solution to one of the most vexing problems in electoral matters and that is: How one enables people to vote in their constituency when they are not able to vote there on election day.

Now the basic rule in this Province and throughout North America, as far as I know, and throughout England where our system comes from, is that one votes on the election day in the place where one lives, and that's a pretty good rule. It stood the test of about 150 years of elections and it is a pretty good rule but, there are two sorts of exceptions that have grown up and are generally accepted and both are reflected in our statute, one is: where one is going to be away from one's regular home on election day and he voted a day or two early in the advanced poll and that's accepted and we have had advanced polls, they are provided and they will continue.

Then there is the case of somebody who is away from home on a longer-term basis, perhaps a student at the university or somebody who is working or somebody who is incarcerated. Now that prisoners have been given the right to vote, as they are guaranteed to them under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or somebody in a hospital away from home. I once, as I recollect, lost - let's see. I lost the Waterford by two votes to one but I won the prison by two votes to one so I squared the prison and hospital vote, which says something about something, but the solution we followed in this Province hitherto has been a so-called special poll and any member will speak, I suspect, with a degree of horror and lack of affection about the so-called special polls.

MR. HARRIS: Even the Waterford -

MR. ROBERTS: My friend from St. John's East says the people of the Waterford who voted against me were wiser than the people in the prison who voted for me perhaps, but the people in the Waterford acknowledged that society has acknowledged they have psychiatric problems and is attending to those I would say to my friend.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My friend from Placentia has a point.

MR. CAREEN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I would agree with that. The people who have mental difficulty, mental problems are sick. I would agree with that and I have long felt that one of the problems of our society is that, you know, mental disabilities are considered somehow less proper, less appropriate or less right, less normal than physical disability and that they are just as real and require treatment. I agree completely with my friend and as Minister of Health, when I was there many years ago and I was Chairman of the Board at the Waterford for a while and then in my present role, I like to count myself as a supporter of psychiatric - In fact, my uncle, as my friend may know, had a long history with psychiatric institutions in this Province and was superintendent of the Waterford for many years.

Now, let me come back, Mr. Chairman, to the bill itself. The solution we have hitherto adopted to the situation of these people who are away from home for extended periods of time, but who are still resident in Eagle River or in Exploits or wherever and want to have their vote count there on polling day has been special polls and these were first used in 1971 in the general election in this Province. Members are very familiar with them. What it means is that in every identified polling location we set up with fifty-two districts, fifty-two special booths, fifty-two boxes. In many cases fifty-two DROs, fifty-two booths in each of twenty or thirty special polling places. We have traditionally used them in vocational schools or the colleges, the university, hospitals, the prisons, institutions around the Province. There are as many as twenty or thirty. Hope Brook you know, which is an isolated, fly-in mining development and other places.

Now, quite simply, two comments on the resulting experience we have had in twenty-five years and I think I speak for all political parties and certainly, this was the conclusion as I recall it of the Standing Committee when they addressed this issue. Quite simply, Mr. Chairman, the system of special polls is extraordinarily expensive. It costs as much to put a DRO and a box in the Happy Valley Labrador campus of the Labrador College with a booth there for Mount Scio or for LaPoile district as it does to put a box in Mount Scio or LaPoile, even though two or three people may vote in Naskaupi, cast their ballots in Mount Scio district, and in the normal poll in a regular district 100 or 200 people, so it doesn't double the cost of a general election to have these special polls, but it just about doubles it. It is a very, very, very expensive solution. Secondly, we end up with a situation whereby we have poll after poll where next to no votes are cast.

Your Honour, after the election, will recall receiving I think it is form 51, but it is a form headed `Statement of the Poll', and each DRO is obliged by the act to fill this out and send a copy of it to each of the candidates on the ballot in that constituency.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) yellow envelopes.

MR. ROBERTS: They come in yellow envelopes, my friend from Eagle River reminds me. They come in and they list the results in each poll, and the special polls what you see is: number of ballots provided, 250; number of ballots cast, zero; number of ballots spoiled; number of ballots for so-and-so, zero, so-and-so zero, and so-and-so, zero; total ballots unused, 250, square it off, a complete waste of time and effort. But we are still left with the situation, with the need, to enable a person who is away from home involuntarily and for an extended period of time on election day, to cast his or her ballot in the constituency in which he or she is resident. Now that is an essential part of our system, so the whole group of amendments - they are found in section 21 of the bill, as I recollected - that address this recommendation and carry into effect a new system of special ballots, simply put, you will apply to the Chief Electoral Officer; you will get a special ballot. You will then seal it in a special envelope which goes in another envelope, and the double envelope system preserves the secrecy of the ballot.

This system appears complicated. It is less complicated than the ones we now use, and it has worked, we understand, in Ontario, and I believe the federal act is being changed to allow the same thing, so we believe it will work here and we put it forward on that basis.

Mr. Speaker, the other point I would make is that when these amendments are adopted, as I believe and hope will be the case, it is our intention to proclaim the full Election Act, the new Election Act, with one exception.

Members will recall there is a new part of the act, a whole section of the new act, that deals with election finances, and we believe that is a great step forward because it prohibits donations except to the parties, and requires disclosure and requires reporting, and limits expenditure during elections. We believe that is a great reform, and we brought it in, and it seems to have worked very well during the time it has been in force.

The act also provides that each individual district may become a reporting/receiving centre for donations. I think the view of all three parties is that it is not necessary to implement that part of it now. We would then go from three reporting and receiving centres, namely, alphabetically, the Liberal, NDP, and PC Parties, to a total of 159 reporting centres, namely fifty-two times three districts, three parties in each of the fifty-two districts, for 156, and then the three parties themselves, so we don't intend to proclaim that. It will stay on the books until we are ready, until government is ready, the party is ready, to move forward. It will be a fair administrative load for the individual districts, for the parties, and for the Chief Electoral Officer in his capacity as chief administrator of that part of the act as well, so we will be proclaiming the act except for those sections, and I believe that all three parties are of the view that the present system is adequate and we will go ahead on that basis.

Mr. Speaker, the only other comment I will make is that there are very full explanatory notes to the bill, three-and-a-half pages of small print. They deal at some length and in some detail with the amendments themselves. I will simply refer members to them rather than repeat them, and will say that I shall do my best to answer any comments or questions members may wish to make either when I speak to close second reading of the bill, or alternately when the bill gets to committee stage.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I commend the bill to the House and ask it be read a second time.

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

MR. HARRIS: I will try my best to use up all the time allotted to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I remember circumstances in which people had unlimited time and tried to use it all up in this House.

I would like to have a few words to say on Bill 23. It relates to a most important piece of legislation, the Elections Act, which determines how people are elected to this House. There is quite a bit of detail in these amendments, as the Government House Leader has said, going on for some three and a half pages, providing for certain policy changes, certain corrections to matters that have been pointed out as difficulties or potential difficulties by the Chief Electoral Officer, and certain other matters that went through the hands of the committee, the advisory committee appointed pursuant to the act wherein all registered parties are entitled to nominate, through their leader in writing, two people to this advisory committee.

That advisory committee has done a lot of work in preparing and promoting some of the changes here, and I have to say that my information is that this committee has worked rather well together. Even though the parties represented, and the individuals represented different partisan interests, there was an interest by all in having an electoral process that was as free from undue influence and problems as possible. I guess as an example here there is one provision that provides you cannot have a campaign office closer than 100 meters to a polling station, so you could not try and influence voters by setting up next to the polling station with your campaign office and all your signs and posters.

AN HON. MEMBER: They did it (Inaudible)

MR. HARRIS: Now, there are exceptions. There is an exception here, unless you cannot find another place. There may be some circumstances where you are so close to a polling station and there is not another suitable place there, so it cannot be an absolute rule. If there are circumstances where it is impossible in a particular community to find space outside of the 100 meter rule then it would be a problem. It would not be a problem because it could be done, but where it can be avoided physically then it ought to be avoided, and it is obvious, I guess, to hon. members here why such a rule would be important.

There are some general principles though that are present in this act. The Government House Leader referred to the individual voting on the same day in a polling station as being a part of the principles of English elections and brought here for the last 150 years. I find it kind of interesting actually. I have just been reading a book on the history of Newfoundland politics in the period between 1832 and 1860 which was the period of what was called the Representative Government in Newfoundland where there were two Houses of Parliament, two legislative bodies, the House of Assembly and a Legislative Council. The Legislative Council was appointed by the governor under the control of the Colonial Office in England and the House of Assembly was elected by a popular franchise.

In fact the franchise in Newfoundland was far broader than it was in England. Even under the Reform Act of 1832 there was no property qualification in Newfoundland when Representative Government was introduced in 1832 and you were allowed to vote as long as you were a resident of Newfoundland. Now the upper classes were not always excited about that, and neither was the Colonial Office, and neither were the merchant class in many cases pleased that there was such a wide franchise. One of the interesting aspects of that particular period was there was a big fight between the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly, in fighting over appointing officers, appointing clerks, appointing and nominating officers and officials of the House. These were in the control of the appointed council, not in the control of the House of Assembly.

We had a similar situation to what we have now in the Parliament of Canada, where in order for legislation to be passed, there had to be the same bills passed by both the House of Assembly and, in this case, the Legislative Council. And if the Legislative Council amended the legislation and amended the bills, they were sent back to the House of Assembly, and if the House of Assembly refused to pass them, the bills did not become law.

That is similar to what we have with our un-elected, unrepresentative Senate in Ottawa which has the constitutional power to refuse legislation and to not pass bills that come from the House of Assembly. Now, those rules have been amended over the years to the point where constitutional convention has really prevented the Senate from preventing legislation from being passed by the House of Commons. Ultimately, the House of Commons cannot have its way politically or may, in fact, be forced to call an election. But back in those days there did not appear to be the same kind of polling by secret ballot as occurred here in our elections act. In fact, the poll was taken over a number of days, in some cases, a number of weeks, and it leads to a lot of problems, I say to the Minister of Education, a lot of problems, particularly in the Harbour Grace - Carbonear area where there was, in fact, the need to call in troops from time to time to quell the disturbances that occurred at elections. So it is very important -

MR. EFFORD: What are you talking about calling in troops?

MR. HARRIS: Called in troops to quell disturbances at election time over your way.

MR. EFFORD: You are off your head.

MR. HARRIS: Oh, it was a long time ago. It is not in recent memory, I say to the Member for Port de Grave, but it was over in Harbour Grace and Carbonear that there were difficulties with elections because of disturbances at elections having to do with sectarianism. The Member for Harbour Grace knows about it. There was a requirement on a number of occasions. Later on there were, in fact, people killed during election riots. So I say that merely to underline the importance of having election rules that are regarded as fair and not open to corrupt practices so that individuals know that they can have a secret ballot and not be subject to the undue influence of one candidate or another.

The one issue that is referred to here - and I think it was a consensus of the committee that there ought to be some changes made in it with respect to election finance and the contributions by resident or non-resident individuals, corporations or trade unions. That clause provides that now you would not have to be resident in the Province in order to make a contribution to a political party. I don't disagree with that. I think there are lots of Newfoundlanders who are living away who might want to contribute to the Member for Harbour Grace's campaign, if it were his brother or his cousin or if he had several fans in Ontario who wanted to support his campaign. If these were the only contributions he could get, then why shouldn't his brother in Mississauga be able to send him $50 or $100 to help him out with his campaign, to buy a few signs so he wouldn't disgrace the family? I can understand why members would want to be able to have a contribution from individuals from other provinces, and that has been extended to trade unions and corporations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: This whole business of election financing does bring about something that I have been thinking about for some time. I think it deserves some discussion. Because there are elements in the New Democratic Party, not only here in Newfoundland and Labrador but also in other provinces, who think that maybe the elections act should change so that no corporations and no trade unions can contribute to elections, that the only contributions to parties should be from individuals. If an individual wants to put his or her money where his or her mouth is and support the Member for Harbour Grace or support his political party, then that should be so.

There is a bias. If corporations become the major contributor to political parties, then they expect laws and responses like - I don't know why, we don't seem to know where the Shops' Closing Act comes from. Maybe there are some powerful financial contributors to the Liberal Party who have an interest in this legislation, or at least there is a perception that people, particularly corporations -

MR. ROBERTS: That is why we brought in a bill, for the first time in the Province's history, which forces disclosure.

MR. HARRIS: Disclosure isn't the answer to everything, I say to the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) disclosure (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: If the minister had listened to the beginning of my speech -

MR. ROBERTS: No, I heard it too many times (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: - he would have realized that what I was talking about was perhaps we might be willing to consider having only individuals contribute to political parties, no unions and no corporations, only individuals. Perhaps we should consider that, Mr. Chairman, because we have a concern, and it has been expressed across this country, that the control of the political agenda is based on what has come to be known as the corporate agenda.

When you look at the contributions of major political parties in Canada it is the banks, the big corporations, that provide the majority of funding for the political parties in this country of the Conservative and Liberal brand. Whether they be the Reform Party or the - the Reform Party actually may have more individual contributions than corporate, I don't know for sure.

I know, when one examines the contributions of the major banks, one can see that they support the Conservative and Liberal parties. In turn, the Conservative and Liberal parties over the years have made sure, on the national level, that there were policies in place that supported the efforts of the banks, in particular, to make substantial, and many may say, obscene, profit at the expense of ordinary folks who keep their money in the banks, small businesses which pay high interest rates when they can get access to (inaudible) at all, and favourable tax treatment for foreign debt of banks, favourable tax treatment that allows them to write off, in some cases fast write-offs, for large foreign debts, and at the same time return a very outrageous profit to their shareholders.

The latest figures show the banks so far are giving - each of them seems to make over $1 billion in profit. And their contributions to political parties have resulted in policies of governments, both Liberal and Conservative, who are the only ones who have had power in Ottawa in recent times. In fact, going back to the turn of the century, I don't think there are any other parties that had power in this country other than the Liberals and the Conservatives. But the banks have certainly done well by these governments and by their political contributions. So I think the time may come, and it is worth considering, whether or not we should make only individuals permitted to contribute to political parties, because there isn't necessarily an equation between a corporation and a particular union and to assume an equality where none exists, is not a reasonable assumption.

There is an amendment to apply to non-resident corporations, non-resident individuals and non-resident trade unions, and I don't disagree with that. There are obviously, as I said, individuals in other provinces who would wish to contribute to a political party here, people who ordinarily lived in Newfoundland and have moved away and still wish to support a provincial political party of their choice, and I don't see a problem with that. There are some technical reasons within unions why the political contributions might reside in another jurisdiction and, in fact, the contributions themselves may come from outside of the Province; and with corporations, if people want to give money to the various parties, then I think we have to treat them all the same at this stage, unless there is a general rule which says you are not going to accept contributions from any corporations or anyone other than individuals. I think that is a circumstance that hasn't really been adopted by any political party in this Province to date but is one that may be worth considering for the future.

There are quite a few other changes here that can be debated at third reading or in Committee and at this stage I am not proposing any amendments. I think there is a need to implement many of the changes here that have been identified as a result of having an election or two and a few by-elections under the existing legislation. It was a new and complex act and attempted to modernize some of the proceedings, and I think for the first time, people who are active in the running of elections and in the problems that arise, have had a say in influencing changes that would make the procedure itself more sensible, get rid of problems and avoid unnecessary difficulties, particularly ones that arise on election day when people are running around fighting over interpretations to acts and what can and cannot go on in a polling booth.

For example, there is a provision here that would allow a scrutineer to pass on information to another person with respect to who has voted.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pretty fundamental, isn't it?

MR. HARRIS: Fairly fundamental, it has been going on for years. Obviously, somebody raised it as a problem, and I am sure somewhere across this Province, some deputy returning officer tried to stop a scrutineer from telling a runner who had voted in the particular election, and forced them to have separate agents to do this or do that. I mean, there are always problems on election day that arise and I think that it is wise that we have had party representatives who know how elections are actually conducted from the party's point of view having an influence and a say on what happens here. Perhaps the modern era will have a scrutineer sitting there with a cellular telephone. The next thing we will have, I suppose, is a scrutineer sitting there with a cellular telephone and having an open line saying: oh, Mrs. So-and-So just came in and voted, you can cross her off your list. And we will probably have to change the Election Act to provide for that, if someone objects to a scrutineer sitting at the table with a cellular telephone or a computer terminal hooked up to a modem, or something like that, a lap-top computer with a modem hooked up to a cellular telephone, punching in the numbers of people who have voted. That is the kind of change that takes place in electioneering and campaigning that sometimes needs to be reflected in the laws that we have.

I see this bill as representing a large number of modifications, and in some cases, simplifications, in some cases, corrections of problems that have come up, and having reviewed these matters, and knowing that they come from a committee that has had representation by all parties, I want to indicate my support for this bill at second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. the Member for Ferryland, it being Thursday, and close to 4:00 p.m., I would like to read the questions for the Late Show.

Question number one, from the hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation: I am dissatisfied with the answer re my question concerning the school bus accident.

Question number two, from the hon. the Member for Ferryland: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Health re my question on Enriched Needs.

Question number three, from the hon. the Member for St. John's East: I am not satisfied with the answer of the Minister of Labour on the shops' closing rules.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a few comments pertaining to some of the amendments here, and some of the clauses. I see it as something positive.

There is one there requiring a party leader's endorsement of candidates to be done on sort of a blanket approval now rather than having each candidate running around trying to get a signature of the leader of that party. It facilitates the process, and it is a lot easier for the elected candidates, or the people who have been running for nomination. The last thing they want to be doing is trying to think on a technicality now, or running around trying to get a signature of a person who would be moving around the Province in the campaign. I see that as being positive.

I see as being a little positive, too, and certainly as the Government House Leader referred to, he is doing his best to assist people like the NDP in obtaining funds outside the Province in assisting in their campaign. If somebody wants to contribute to a campaign, it should not be limited to this Province. If someone from outside the Province wants to contribute to a campaign, whether it be British Columbia, Ontario or elsewhere, they should have the right to be able to do so, whether they are doing business in this Province or not, I think.

AN HON. MEMBER: And they will.

MR. SULLIVAN: And they will, and it is only proper. We have a free democratic society. The Premier is out talking about tearing down barriers among provinces here now, and in the Atlantic Provinces and in Canada. They talked initially about sticking up barriers, so we have to cut off communication there. We are living in a global marketplace now, and we have to think `global', not very turned-in and very self-centred in our thoughts.

I guess the authority now to make regulations is going to be taken away from Cabinet, basically, in certain areas, and placed under the Chief Electoral Office, is it not?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is the amendment in clause 50 - would transfer authority to make regulations that are contained in section 223 of the act to the Chief Electoral Officer from the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't have it, so -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: `Tom', if he went to law school he would be up there a couple of days and they would have him teaching.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: They would probably have me kicked out, boy. For interrupting the class, I would probably be kicked out, I say to the minister. I probably wouldn't last two days.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: One thing about it, you have the `gift of gab' to be a lawyer.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I tell you, that is probably the only thing keeping me from wanting to go to law school now, for being called a `learned friend' of the Government House Leader, I say to the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, you can, and I tell the Government House Leader that the reason I asked for that recommendation was because I wanted to make sure I would never get accepted. That is why I asked for it.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) with respect to law schools the difference between him and me is I have been accepted. 223 (2) of the act, and that is the section that is amended by 50 (2). 223 (2) now reads, the Chief Electoral Officer may by regulation prescribe forms for use under this act, and it will now say the Chief Electoral Officer may establish forms for use under this act, so it just simplifies the paperwork somewhat. It does not give the CEO any authority that he does not already possess, but it simply enables him to discharge the authority more effectively.

I say to my friend for Grand Bank that I am proud of the fact that the law school when I was here, little to do with me, but the teachers included people like Bora Laskin and Caesar Wright. It was quite an experience to go to law school when every textbook we used, which were the standard textbooks in the country, were written by professors.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. ROBERTS: The University of Toronto, 1961.

AN HON. MEMBER: It must have been pretty easy to get through then.

MR. SULLIVAN: So, the minister is indicating that, I guess, to facilitate the process, where you do not have to go back to Cabinet and for Cabinet to outline the layout of a form, now the Chief Electoral Officer can do that, and it would expedite the process and cut out some of the red tape and bureaucracy that is in the system, I would assume.

In Clause 21 here in his bill, Bill 23, it states that an application to vote by special ballot may be made to the office of the Chief Electoral Officer at any time between the issue of the writ and 6:00 p.m. on a day prior to polling day to be determined by the Chief Electoral Officer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon. The day before. One other day prior.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sorry, it is not the day, it is a day. Fine, I accept that, because I read a subsequent section indicating that ballots must have been completed by 4:00 o'clock the previous day I thought here might be -

MR. ROBERTS: (inaudible) time possible, but we are leaving him the freedom to determine what that is.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, that is fine. That makes sense I say to the Government House Leader. That is why you bring in amendments on bills, because they make sense when you put them out the first time. That is why we had an amendment on a bill there a few days ago, because it made so much sense. That is why the Minister of Employment and Labour Relation brings a bill to this House that makes sense and they are not even going to call it. That is what I call making sense, making effective use of debate in this House, to float something out, to test public opinion out in the marketplace. This is the right to be able to exercise your opinion to elect people to this House that are going to do responsible things, like dealing with shop closing and like dealing with everything else. That is very relevant I say to the minister, very relevant, a lot more relevant than the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are smarter than I thought you were.

MR. SULLIVAN: I know, and when you do some more thinking you might think I am even smarter than you though I was. I say to the minister it would be nice to know the list of all those companies that told him -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It would be nice to know the minister could think.

MR. SULLIVAN: I cannot say that because I did hear that once there three years ago he did think.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I agree with all kinds of shopping but Sunday shopping you can do on Saturday.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, you can. We go to Sunday mass on Saturday.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you close them all?

MR. SULLIVAN: Give me the power and I will tell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I would not close them all, of course I would not. I know what the minister is getting at. I will give very strict definitions of all types of business. I would have very specific definitions. It is the responsibility of government to do it, and once they do that, then we have identified specific types of businesses then you make decisions on what constitutes a type of business, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not say that. I did not say that at all. Oh, minister, I did not say that. I can tell the minister, when it comes to this House. I will stand up and you will know where I stand on every bill that comes to this House. When that comes here to this floor of this House you will find out where I stand on it, I tell the minister, if you have guts enough to bring it in. I will tell you where I am on it, nice and clear and unequivocal. You will know where I am on it.

MR. REID: Tell him that he does not have the guts to bring it in, tell him, tell him.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, you tell him. I cannot speak for you. If you want to tell him, you tell him.

AN HON. MEMBER: You will be wherever your leader is.

MR. SULLIVAN: I must say, I thank you for your confidence in seeing me as a very loyal individual. I think the minister is correct in knowing that I am a loyal individual. That is far more then I can about many of the members over on that side of the House I can tell you. You should hear some of the stories that we hear on an ongoing basis, I say to the minister and some involving him.

MR. ROBERTS: Maybe you should do (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will try not to, I say to the Government House Leader, I will try not to. I would not want to throw anything out there now that might throw a monkeywrench into their thinking. I say to the minister too, there is also provision here - it is my understanding too that one of the provisions of the special ballot will enable people to be able to prepare and submit that ballot in, I guess, lieu of having advanced polls all over the Province at a fair cost.

MR. ROBERTS: Advanced poll is if you are going to be away (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I know, that is the point that I am getting to, yes. Instead of having the cost of having somebody in Carbonear, Grand Falls or Labrador City voting for a member in Ferryland district now, that option won't be there anymore. Anybody who is there working and is coming back can now do a special ballot and get it sent in. They will have an opportunity to get in their district and vote. So that should be a reasonable cost savings I would think because to set up separate polling stations in all these areas is a -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, sure, that is right.

AN HON. MEMBER: So what do you do, mail in your ballot?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, you apply -

AN HON. MEMBER: No one else can use it can they?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, and once you mail your ballot, once you register and get a ballot you cannot vote then in the district any more naturally. That prevents the opportunity to vote twice like some people do in close elections, that makes it tough.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I had it close my first time, I say to the minister. This is a general election now. This is not -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I say to the Government House Leader, this bill is not dealing with leadership elections. He is confused. This is dealing with general elections, to my knowledge, or by-elections. Yes, I had a fairly close one my first time around, I say to the minister, it was reasonably close. I know what the Member for St. John's South is going to attribute to my success. I don't buy into that theory but it is debatable, lots of reasons. There were 125 people more who voted for me then for my nearest opponent. That is why I attribute to why I would, I guess.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is a good thing you brought the Premier up to my district, I say. He had three people in Renews, he had five in Fermeuse, he had seven in Ferryland and he had a few others down the shore. If he had not come up to my district you might have won. I tell you, you might have won.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, 280 people in Tors Cove. Two hundred and eighty people did not attend a meeting in Tors Cove. There were 104 people in Tors Cove and sixty-five of them were mine.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is right. When the meeting was ended whoever went in there against me, a majority came out. So the more meetings we could have with the Premier up in the district -

AN HON. MEMBER: Why? Why?

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't know but the minister said that to me on a couple of occasions before, I was not aware of that. Maybe when he stands up to speak he could certainly tie in that because that is very relevant.

AN HON. MEMBER: I will tell the member why, one on one.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he told me because they played political games that I don't play and by -

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that right?

MR. SULLIVAN: That is correct, yes, played political games to get elected. I don't say anything to get elected that I don't believe in and I deal with my own issues and not with anybody elses. That costs in elections, I can tell you. I would sooner lose and be happy about it than win by a method that I'm not happy about, I say to the member. That is what I advocate and that is what I will continue to follow, whatever happens.

There is a change in terminology also in clause 58. Maybe the Government House Leader, the Minister of Justice.... It says "auditing standards" as opposed to "accounting principles." So I would assume there would be - that is in clause 58, the amendment. You substitute the phrase "auditing standards," I guess to bring in more acceptable procedures for auditing rather than some general accounting principles that are more general in terms. Would that be the reason in that specific clause?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No. I'm just wondering why the change in the term.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, that will be fine. I might be able to pick something out of that.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend. This is the note given me by the officials who prepared it.

This clause concerns an amendment to subsection 308(6) dealing with the duties of auditors by changing the words "generally accepted accounting principles" to "generally accepted auditing standards," which is apparently the more accurate professional term. That is what I'm told. I can get more, but it appears that somebody with some knowledge of accounting or of auditing said: Look, generally accepted accounting principles, which is a term I knew as a lawyer years ago, now the politically correct term is generally accepted auditing standards. It is no more than that. That is my understanding of it.

MR. SULLIVAN: I thank the hon. member. Basically, does that include that we could have to provide probably certain audit provisions as opposed to sort of unaudited procedures? Would there be a distinction? Just to take a normal financial statement, as an example. The unaudited statement obviously is quite different from an audited statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is one of the big differences, yes. There are certain other principles and standards at stake in an audited one as opposed to an unaudited one.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) we require audited statements. Remember, the only people from who they are required now are the three parties, and then candidates in elections.

MR. SULLIVAN: Still there is a stronger - it seems to me more incumbent upon the supplier of information in an unaudited one as to accuracy as opposed to an audited one, sort of gets into more detail and more responsibility for its accuracy.

MR. ROBERTS: In a private capacity I've had a lot to do with that issue in the last year. I don't want to go into it publicly, for obvious reasons, but I can assure my friend I'm learning there ain't much difference between $50,000 for auditors and $20,000 for non-audited statements at the end of the day when you come to rely on them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is right. Actually, they are supposed to examine all your invoices, bills, in more detail as opposed to just accepting probably a review of ledgers and so on. I would assume the same standards - I didn't see it here, but I guess that is covered in that already. There is a limitation of contributions. That is already there prior and -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is already a part that was proclaimed, wasn't it?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is in law right now and that is why there would be no reference to it here. I just asked that in passing there.

MR. ROBERTS: No, the hon. gentleman is correct.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Mr. Speaker, I don't have any other particular questions at this time. I will get an opportunity later to have a closer scrutiny of some of the clauses in this bill.

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

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, is there another member who wishes to speak?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. Mr. Speaker, all I intend to say is to thank members, and to say it is 4:15 p.m. We can do one of two things. If members are so minded we could begin Committee debate as soon as we finish second reading. Do I have my friend for Grand Bank? If members are so minded we could begin Committee debate the moment we finish second reading. We may not finish Committee debate on this bill today, I acknowledge. I would prefer to do that, to use the fifteen minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, we will do that. I move the bill be read a second time, and then we will go into Committee on this bill. Okay? Alright.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: And Late Show.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House now, by leave. (Bill No. 23)

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Penney): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: I must say, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman for Bonavista North has undergone a transmogrification of some substance. Would you please call Bill No. 23, An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 23, An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991.

Shall clause 1 carry?

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, this is a lengthy bill. Why don't we simply ask members - if there are any particular sections they wish to deal with let's deal in a general way. Otherwise Your Honour is going to end up calling sixty separate clauses.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I have to say to my friend for Grand Bank, what we are paying the Deputy Chairman of Committees of this House, it ain't worth it.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991." (Bill No. 23)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and will you disregard this talk about a raise for the Deputy Chairman of Committees?

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Barrett): The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report having passed Bill No. 23 without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

On motion, Bill No. 23 read a first and second time, ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, could we by agreement move to the Late Show?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, if members are ready now. If the gentleman for Baie Verte - White Bay is ready and my friend for Works, Services and Transportation is ready perhaps we could begin the Late Show, and then we will adjourn at 4:50 p.m., unless there is some bill my friend wants to deal with?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) animal control.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, let's deal with that then. Bill No. 3, Mr. Speaker, Order No. 23.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading?

MR. ROBERTS: Second reading, Sir, yes. Bud the spud is not here, so I will deal with it.

Motion, second reading of an bill, "An Act To Amend The Animal Protection Act", (Bill No. 3).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, this is a very short act and all it would do if accepted is allow the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, to appoint an employee of the department as a special constable, under the Animal Protection Act, and that speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker, I don't need to add to that. The measure is so obviously on the face of it, a sensible idea that I shall simply move the bill now be read a second time.

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

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

I can't resist getting up on this one, Mr. Speaker, the Animal Protection Act. The bill would amend subsection 13(2) of the act to authorize the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture to appoint an employee of the department as a special constable, a special constable. I mean here we were yesterday and the day before, how many constables in the RNC were laid off?

MR. CAREEN: Fourteen.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Fourteen, and now here we are appointing an employee of the minister's department as a special constable. What is it, a bodyguard for the minister, I wonder? Is that it? The Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, shish kebab, old shish kebab himself, Mr. Speaker, barbecue Bud. But seriously -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, really, what is -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) yield for a moment.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, section 13 of the act we are amending provides that the minister may appoint special constables at sub (1) but sub (2) limits the special constables to an agent of the SPCA approved by the executive of the SPCA or a staff veterinarian. The amendment would allow the minister as well, to designate an employee of the department, so that's all it would do. It would broaden the group whom the minister could appoint as a special constable for the purpose of enforcing the Animal Protection Act to include any employee of the Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. That's what it would do.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Okay, Mr. Speaker, that's the other point I was going to ask (inaudible). Could he appoint a member of the House? I am sure there is one member here who would get an overwhelming endorsement and reference from members, the Member for Eagle River, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that if the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture would get his way, if he could get his way, that is probably whom he would appoint as a special constable, the Member for Eagle River.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, the Member for Eagle River would be top on the minister's list. Now I am sure that the Member for Eagle River, I am sure that -

MR. CAREEN: He would be top dog then.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He would be top dog then, he said, top dog, but I am sure as well, Mr. Speaker, that when the Member for Eagle River looks at the front benches in the ministry, there is no doubt who is top on his list, the seat he looks at most and when he drools and salivates waiting to get into the Cabinet, there is no doubt what minister is top on his list.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: How yours is? Yes, ask you how yours is, yes, he can't wait to get in. No, it wasn't you I was thinking about. No, it is not you. I don't know if the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture is going to be able to give the special constable a pistol, Mr. Speaker, but if it were the Member for Eagle River, I would suggest the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture not give him a pistol, because I guarantee you the minister would need bulletproof vest day in and day out, he wouldn't be able to trust the Member for Eagle River, as much experience as he has with animal protection, Mr. Speaker, he is way ahead -

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill, I think the Member for Eagle River supported the redistribution of the minister's seat.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, no doubt. He would redistribute the minister pretty quickly, but he surpasses anyone in the minister's department with experience in animal protection.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Paid for by the Premier's office, I would suspect, a course in animal grooming, and now he wants to be special constable to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

It's too bad the minister is not here, because I would have loved for the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture to introduce this bill. I would have looked forward to him introducing it and giving an explanation as to why he wanted a special constable. I am sure if the minister had been here it would have been nowhere close to the explanation the Government House Leader gave.

MR. ROBERTS: And probably not as concise.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Certainly not as concise or accurate, so maybe it is a question one of these days to ask the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture when he gets back, in Question Period, why he needs a special constable in his department.

You see, if members opposite would play the game fairly they would not alert the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture to this discussion, and he would come in some day and we would get up in Question Period and ask him why he needs a special constable, just to see what response he would give. Can you imagine the answer we would get from the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. It would be to protect me at my barbecue. It would be to provide security. Can you imagine the line we would get from him, though? It would be to protect me when I visit -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am under threat from caplin. The caplin are going to be so thick when they roll in on the beach, so large and big, they are going to roll me over; and I need protection when I visit my old Faculty of Science at the University. If he ever goes back over there, that is where he will need a special constable. If he ever tries to cross the threshold of the Faculty of Science -

AN HON. MEMBER: Welcome back.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the Member for Eagle River, I am running out of time and the Government House Leader is... The Member for Eagle River has a way of provoking me, but I can assure the Member for Eagle River the message loud and clear from the Faculty of Science is simply this: That we did not give him a cent in the last election. He wanted a donation for his campaign, the Minister of Fisheries - well, he is now the Minister of Fisheries - and we didn't give him a cent, but if he comes looking for a donation the next time, to a person we are going to donate whatever we are allowed, because if there is one thing we don't want, as much as we cringe when we think about him being in his seat in the House of Assembly with authority, that we will do whatever is in our power financially and otherwise to make sure that member never, never, never, comes back into the Faculty of Science. Now that is the message loud and clear from the University, so that is a great vote of confidence in the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is no more accurate than (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Now, the member is trying to provoke me again.

MR. ROBERTS: Don't anybody provoke anybody, eh?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, because when someone is telling the truth, the message loud and clear from the University is: Please - and if he gets elected once more he cannot go back to the university.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I don't know. Well, Bud the spud the Government House Leader called him, shish kebab Hulan, walks like an Egyptian.

At least the Government House Leader has explained it, but please don't alert the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture to it because we want to ask him why he needs a special constable when he comes back.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now he closes the debate. The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I think that is the wish of the House, so all I shall say is simple res ipsa loquitur, which I always understood to mean `the thing speaks for itself'.

I move second reading, Sir.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Animal Protection Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 3)

MR. SPEAKER: It being 4:29 p.m., we will commence the adjournment debate.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise today and continue on with a very serious question that I asked the minister back on Monday.

Mr. Speaker, before I go on with the question, I would just like to remind the minister that what I was doing on Monday, and what I started to do, until the minister put the kibosh on it and started to threaten people - and I would give the minister the three questions I was going to ask, the supplements, and there was no way of trying to inflate, exaggerate, or fabricate the story, as the minister said. All I was doing, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, was responding to calls that I had from my district, like all members in here get from their districts, from parents who could not even finish the conversation on the phone because they were so upset.

MR. EFFORD: Why did they call you?

MR. SHELLEY: I will answer that for the minister. The parents called me. How did I find out about the accident, about the situation? They certainly did call me, Mr. Speaker, and then I called the bus driver myself. If the minister wants to know I will tell him the truth - I do not have a problem with that. Then, I spoke to the principal of the school, and I was hoping when I went out on that Saturday, when I returned to my district, to go to the site to see exactly where it is.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: What is the problem with the minister?

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying to the minister here today is that I did not have time in Question Period - if the minister is telling me that I didn't get a phone call, then I will show the minister the phone call. I will show him the pink slip with the number on it and I will give him the parents' names, if that is what the minister wants.

But the point is - it was the same in Question Period the other day - the minister tries to deflect the real issue here. I was responding to people in my district who had called me and who were genuinely upset with a situation that happened and which could have been very, very serious. I was about to ask the minister in the third supplementary, very simply - this was the request to the minister, a genuine request, for him to re-assess the lay-offs on the Baie Verte Peninsula to see if it was directly affecting the safety of road conditions. That is all I was going to ask the minister.

MR. EFFORD: You do not know what you talking about.

MR. SHELLEY: The minister says I do not know what I am talking about. Well, I know the road very well, I tell the minister. I do not need the minister to tell me anything, because I asked the minister for a report which he would not give. The minister had a chance when he stood in his place to give a report, and then I would have gone on with my third supplementary, which was to ask the minister to seriously look at the cutbacks on the peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, I am saying that the parents were upset. Is the minister telling me I do not know what I am talking about with that? Then the minister is saying there was not a near-accident. I know that road very well and I know the ravine they are talking about. The problem is that this minister is not taking up his responsibility and not listening to anybody, except for somebody with a tie on, up in his office, as an advisor. I suggest he go talk to the people in his department who are out on the roads every day, and talk to the bus drivers who travel the roads every day.

Since this issue has been raised, Mr. Speaker, bus drivers from right across the peninsula have been calling and telling me about the worst conditions they have ever seen the roads in for ever so long. Then the minister gets up and goes on with foolishness about statistics. Do not let the minister go on to think that just because, since 1983, statistics show that the number of accidents have gone down, that this has anything to do with him as a minister. God forbid that he should think that.

The truth is that there has been an improvement in road conditions through the Roads for Rail deal, the double lane coming into St. John's, and over in Corner Brook and down through Stephenville and so on. Those improvements have brought down the number of fatalities in this Province and it has nothing to do with the minister, whatsoever.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, what I have been saying all along is so correct. The hon. members opposite make phone calls looking for information and most commonly get the wrong information. Now, let me tell you what is happening up in his area. He should have made another phone call.

MR. SHELLEY: And you had better be right.

MR. EFFORD: I am right. He should have made another phone call and got the correct information. The fact is that people are not calling - they are calling looking for information. Now, he just told this House that he knows the road. He lives there, he should know the road. Secondly, he said that the reason why there was a problem there was because of lay-offs, on both points he is wrong. First of all, before we reorganized the department, the truck driver used to start down in Westport and come up over the road. This year, they start - he lives in Baie Verte, the trucks there, they go back down over the road. There is the problem, not a lay-off. So what we have done now is, we have put the truck back down where it was in previous years. It is already done, not going to happen, it is done. You should have made another phone call to find out, but you did not make the next phone call because you did not have the information before you came into the House today. I made the decision. I wrote the people on December 5, it is a done deal. The truck is back down there coming up over the road the same as it used to do in all previous years. So, unfortunately, the hon. member is not correct again in his information.

Now, let's get back to the lay-offs. I also found out why the hon. member is so upset, where he is getting his information, because a very close relative of his was one of the people who was laid off on the (inaudible). The hon. member can stand up in the House and tell us the name of the individual who is giving him the information and what relation he is to the hon. member. Now, let's tell the House. Now, tell the House who the other person is. Look after your own.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Now, you had better shut your mouth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay to restrain himself, and the Member for Eagle River is not in his seat.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: You don't know what you are talking about. The guy I am talking about has no relation to me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. TOBIN: He is getting going to get it back, I can guarantee you that.

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

I am warning the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay and the Member for St. John's East Extern, when the Speaker rises in the Chair it demands silence. I have recognized the Member for Ferryland who is participating in the debate and the man has a right to be recognized.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been getting more exercise for my knees so far than I have for my tongue. So I will get an opportunity now I guess to - I have done four knee bends already.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes it is an improvement, I say, Government House Leader, it probably is.

I have a few things to say to the Minister of Health. Now, the Minister of Health stated in this House that there is nobody denied an appropriate appeals process under the Enriched Needs assessment, but I ask the minister: Why did the community health board send out and why is it sending out - I spoke to three people in my district who just called me, one yesterday, I reached him last night. I talked to another family member today and another person called me today about 1:35, I spoke to him before I came to the House. I asked him to read out the section of the letter they received and here is what he read, I say to the minister: `Community Health, St. John's region, currently awaits direction from the Director of Continuing Care, Department of Health, regarding a second level appeal mechanism.' I say to the minister, I think it is only fair -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, could we have silence?

MR. DUMARESQUE: You can't take it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) going off your head when someone mentioned your brother's name. Don't go mouthing off here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members that we are in the House of Assembly and the language - I say to hon. members that what has been said in this House of Assembly can be carried across the airwaves of Newfoundland and Labrador, and some of the comments being made here this afternoon, I do not think tomorrow morning you would want to hear them on the news, so I caution hon. members. If you have something to say to each other, this Chair will not tolerate this kind of language in the House. If you want to go outside and say it, go outside, but it is a reflection on all of us.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't think it is reasonable for a person, a senior, an eighty-some year old person - when the Department of Health knew a year ago that they were going to take over Enriched Needs, April 1 they took it over, and nine months later they have not in place an appeal mechanism that was available to them prior to April 1.

The minister stated in this House: The appeal board thought that they would be able to carry them, but their legal advice told that appeal board that they could not handle those cases. The department knew it and did not appoint an appeal board. It is the responsibility of the Department of Health. Now he is saying they might be able to handle it - a year later, from the time they made the plan, nine months after they took it over.

An eighty-two year old woman living up in Bay Bulls has diabetes, it is uncontrolled, the nurse has to go in twice a day to give needles to that person, has five hours of home care. The home care worker went in, or the Enriched Needs worker went in, and that person was comatose. They had to call an ambulance, and she spent two weeks in hospital, the third time that person had fallen over a period of a few months - and had five hours of Enriched Needs.

The point is, I am not questioning the professional judgement of people to give five hours, but I am questioning the lack of an appeal system to deal with an appeal, to put forth their case whether it should be eight hours or nine or ten or seven, and that is not too much to ask the minister, and the minister has not answered that question.

I asked in the House on October 23. I raised the issue in July; it was carried in the media then. I did press releases on it. I have asked that question, and the minister has stayed back in his department and has not done anything to address this problem.

I talked to the community health board. They are frustrated, I am sure; they have nobody to deal with. I have names for the minister. If the minister wants names, I will give him names of people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I will give him the names of people who got those letters -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will ask for leave, since I lost a couple of minutes, Mr. Speaker, if you don't mind.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I know. I would sooner lose papers than minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Talking about minutes, I have plenty of these, too, of meetings in the Department of Health, plenty of these that say contradictory things. I won't get into that now; I will save that for another time.

I say it is not unreasonable to expect it, and I expect the department should have come out April 1 and said: There will now be a mechanism in place where people like this can be dealt with.

I don't think it's fair to have a family member - the whole family have to leave this Province and go to Edmonton to get work. Other members of their families are working, and that person could be on their own nineteen hours a day, a high risk person, and the problem - and I will wrap up with this; I won't abuse my leave. When a home care worker - and I asked this of the minister and he didn't answer it satisfactorily: I can't see why an Enriched Needs person receiving benefits, they may be ten or fifteen hours a day, whatever, when they are admitted to hospital they can never go back into the home because of a $2,100 cap, but the minister will keep these, and there were fifty-two the week before last, forty-five showing on the list now as of today or yesterday, and it is ongoing, in hospitals in this city at an estimated cost of $300 - $500 a day, from a cost $150,000 - $175,000 a year, to keep fifty people in acute care institutions, when you could put them back in a community under Enriched Needs at one-fifth of that cost.

That does not make economic sense to me, and these people want to be back in their homes, with reasonable care, and family has responsibilities, too, and they can provide it when they get home from work, overnight and on weekends. We know families have to accept it, but I think we need to do something that is reasonable, and we have not had a reasonable response on this issue. And I think it is escalating, it is growing, it is ever-increasing; it is becoming a chronic problem in our system, and it has to be addressed, I say to the minister.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

The hon. member continues to express gross `infactualizations'.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: A number of them in his preamble and in the expression of the question.

First of all, the Department of Health and government did not make a decision twelve months ago to transfer Enriched Needs from social services to health; the decision was made during the budgetary process which was just prior to the announcement of the Budget, in March. It was announced in March and the decision was made some time just prior to that.

Secondly, it is incorrect to state as he did toward the end of his question, that people who go into hospital can never go back to the community. That is wrong, totally inaccurate; it is completely inaccurate. The only people who go in hospital and who cannot go back to their homes in the community, are people who need a level of care such that they need admission to a nursing home and so, on that basis, they are placed in a medically discharge bed until such time as a nursing home vacancy becomes available to them.

Now, to the substance, if there is any substance to his question, to the substance of the question, let me tell the hon. member this: that when the Department of Health assumed responsibility for the Enriched Needs program, we were of the understanding that we could use the appeals mechanism that was currently in place and being used in the Department of Social Services. The external appeals process that that represented which is a second level of appeal really, had their own independent legal opinion that told them that they couldn't hear cases now being put forward by clients of the Department of Health.

As a result of that, the Department of Health requested of government and government, through Cabinet, caused the process to be such that the exterior appeals mechanism that was being used for social services appeals hearings could be used by clients whose responsibility it was of the Minister of Health to look after and so the situation is clearly this, Mr. Speaker, that as we speak, there is an appropriate, first level and there is an appropriate second level of appeal in place for everybody who is receiving home support or Enriched Needs funding, and if there is one individual as described by the member, or if there are other individuals who are receiving Enriched Needs at this moment and who are not satisfied with the appeal that they made on the primary level or the in-house appeals process, and they want to access a secondary or external appeals process, that process is in place at the moment, it is working at the moment and individuals who feel that they want to make an appeal to that process, can do it today, this minute.

The letter to which the hon. member refers from community health is a factual letter. What the letter said was that they were awaiting formal notice from the minister, that the appeals process in social services was now able to hear the appeals from the Department of Health clients under Enriched Needs and so the letter was factual. There is a letter now drafted on my desk, as a matter of fact it may already be gone out this afternoon, to the people in community health indicating that the new appeals process is working and is available. The individual that he refers to has access, right now, to an appeals process if he so feels or if she so feels that she wants to use that process and there is absolutely no inability to be unassessed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) October 23 in Hansard, I will give you a copy.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) up to date between October 23 and December 7 you will find out we've done a lot of work in health (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are now moving on to the third question.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I believe the Minister of Health has completed his answer.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to continue my questioning of the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations on the issue of Sunday closing act. The minister only announced that he was bringing in the act a couple of days ago and already there has been a groundswell of opposition to it coming from the people who supposedly support it, coming from the retailers, from the St. John's Board of Trade and from the business community. These are the people who the minister said have been pressuring the government to bring in this legislation. When asked today to name anybody, any business who supports it, he did not name one. Then when the criticism of the business community and the criticism of the labour community, the Federation of Labour, the representative of the retail/ wholesale department store union and others who criticize the notion of Sunday shopping in long standing opposition by organized labour in this Province because of the effects on workers, when that comes out all of a sudden the minister says: well, just because we put the bill before the House does not mean that we are going to pass it. That is going to be up to the Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation that has been brought forward is Cabinet policy. No legislation comes to this House from a government minister without the Cabinet approving it, we all know that so what are we dealing with now? What have we here? Have we some sort of strategy of raising a fuss about something, is this a great diversion that they are trying to get everybody all excited about, so they won't think about the cuts that the government is making? The public servants they are putting on the streets, three weeks before Christmas, is that what they are trying to do over there? Is that what the Liberal caucus and the Liberal government is trying to do?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, I may be suspicious, but I say to the minister that I have reason to believe that this may be part of the strategy over there, to create a bit of a diversion. Maybe, they don't really intend to do this at all, so what's going on over there? Are they trying to draw attention away from the drastic measures that the government has been taking to try and balance the Budget that they must have known last spring, that they had no intentions of balancing on the basis of expenditures and went ahead and spent another $15 million on Marble Mountain facilities for a few, and water bombers that were on sale, a fire sale on water bombers and now we have the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board causing terrific fear, fear, throughout the public service, fear of what's going to happen next, fear for them and I refer to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to the headline in today's paper: `Sunday shopping strikes fear in the little guy', that's who is being hurt by this, the little guy; the small business people whom the government keeps blathering about how they are interested in supporting. The small stores, the convenience stores, the confectioneries. The little guy, the employee who is going to be forced to work on Sunday, there will be no new jobs created if we have the shops open on Sunday, no new jobs but the people who work in these stores are going to be required to work any day that the employer chooses. So, I want to ask the minister: is this a sincere effort on their part, if it is, who supports it?

It is only to the advantage of a select few, big, major retailers who could see a competitive advantage in opening on Sunday, like the Price Club or Walmart, and they will force through competition all others to open up, and let's look at the malls too. A lot of these contracts, a lot of these leases in the malls can force every shop owner to open when the mall is open so if the mall opens on Sunday, the barber shop has to open whether they want to or not and that's a very important consideration I think the minister should look at before he even thinks about passing this legislation

So I ask the minister, will he elaborate on his answer -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: - and tell us what he is going to do before he even thinks about passing this legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

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

One thing that this government has said to the community and to the people of this Province is: We are sincere about deregulating all of the problems that are out there that cause the business community and the people inconvenience.

Let me say to the Member for St. John's East, the first thing the member should know is that the Province of British Columbia, the NDP Government out in B.C., has its stores open on Sunday. The provinces of Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories, the Maritime Provinces, are open now, for the last five weeks, on Sunday. So I say to the member, this government is not up pushing and strangling the small business community. We are doing what needs to be done. We are giving business a chance to operate.

Now, when it comes to the employees, we did not, nor would we, put anything more on the backs of the employees who are out there working in the retail trade. We cross-referenced it and made sure that the labour standards legislation in this Province - and the member knows - is protected. The labour standards act, actually there is a section in it, I say that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) one day off in seven (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Yes, and it recommends Sunday, I say to the member. The labour standards are always there. They are accessible to any employee in this Province, whether unionized or not. So, under them, the employees of the Province are protected.

The member knows also, if he is going to stand up and be the standard bearer, Mr. Speaker, he should include everybody. Perhaps he should have an amendment to the Shops' Closing Act and stand up and talk and say it is unfair for the fourteen employees at Shoppers Drug Mart who have to work on Sunday. This government is shameful, get up and help those fourteen people. He should talk about the art galleries and the service stations. What about the service stations, ten or twelve people who work in the service stations? What about the convenience stores which are now beyond convenience - very convenient, with meat coolers open, and with all kinds of merchandise? The member knows what I am talking about. We see it every day and it keeps expanding, and expanding, and expanding, I say to the member. So what government is responding to is not the big retailer. I do not know if any big retailer out there would want to open on Sunday, and this minister has not heard from one single one of the big business groups, not one have I heard from.

What we are trying to do is to give commerce, give the business sector, and the public - and many, many of the public in the last survey that I looked at, nearly 70 per cent of the public wanted to shop on Sunday. We have been accused of not responding to the public and now we are responding to the public. Many of the members over there told me the other day that all of a sudden this is a issue. Because a phone is ringing somewhere, it is an issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: Many members over there said to me: a good idea, a good Tory idea; but now, all of a sudden, as the minister said today, political posturing is now taking place. The hon. the Member for St. John's East is over there knowing full well that the NDP government to which he belongs, in four provinces out of six, are the ones that initiated the openings - contradictory. It is time for the member to get his facts straight, and it is time for all hon. members, if they are Tories as they say they are, to support this bill if it should be debated in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I assume the clock will stop at 4:59. Let me just outline the business we will ask members to address tomorrow. I thank those who are properly respectful of my age, status, and general good humour.

Tomorrow we will start with Order 28, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. That is Bill No. 26.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is wrong with tonight?

MR. ROBERTS: Mary Ann will tell my hon. friend what is wrong with tonight, I say to the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: We will then go on to Order 29, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act", Bill No. 4, which stands in the name of my friend, the Minister of Finance.

Then, should we get through that, we will go on to Order No. 30, which is "An Act To Amend The Hospitals Act", Bill No. 39, in the name of my friend, the Minister of Health.

Should we be so fortunate as to get through that, we shall start, although we will not conclude, debate at second reading on Order 37, Bill No. 47, which is the Provincial Offences Act. It was only distributed today, and it would be unreasonable to expect debate to conclude tomorrow. The bill itself is straightforward, although it is lengthy.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, if there is a storm, the House will respond in the appropriate way and my friend, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will be on the wing of the plough making sure we get here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who will make the announcement?

MR. ROBERTS: You listen to the school announcements in the morning and there we are.

MR. SULLIVAN: Kindergarten will be closed.

MR. ROBERTS: It will say, Mr. Snow's class will not be today, because there is a problem with the heating.

Your Honour, on Monday we will ask the members to begin the debate on the Hydro amendments bill, which is Order 27 on today's Order Paper. We will probably finish that sometime early on Tuesday morning, I assume.

Mr. Speaker, I anticipate that on Monday, I am told by the Legislative Council's office, that we should be able to distribute in the House two very important bills that members will want to study at some length. We will be debating them, I assume, next week - we only have next week and the week after - and that is the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act amendments, which is Bill No. 43, and the Mineral Act amendments, which is Bill No. 46. We will be dealing with those next week as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Pardon?

They will be in the House on Monday, and we will not be debating them for a couple of days, anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, if I were as learned as my friend, the Member for St. John's East would have me believe he is, it should be no trouble. They are very straightforward bills.

Your Honour, we will not ask the House to sit beyond noon tomorrow no matter how much my friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West wants to be here.

With that said, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.