The House met at 10:00 a.m.

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Health.

Your department's drug subsidization program has skyrocketed from an expenditure of $27.8 million in '93 - '94 to $35.5 million last year and a projected $38.4 million this year, a $10.6 million or 38 per cent increase in two years. Now since 1988 the cost of brand name drugs has increased by 93 per cent and the index, the consumer cost index, by only 23 per cent in that period.

I ask the minister, will he tell this House if that 38 per cent increase in two years, is due to more people availing of the services or higher prices for drugs or what the combination of those two may be?

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

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

I can further inform the hon. member and for the benefit of the House as well, that in fact, the last figures I saw, we are looking at about a $54 million expenditure in drugs this year. That is broken down roughly into two-thirds for the seniors program and one-third for social service recipients, who are actually paid out of the Department of Health budget although they are not seniors.

The answer to his question really is both. The resulting increase in the cost of drugs is because there is a greater uptake on the seniors program and also because of course, the increased costs in the ingredients that are used in drugs; because we only pay the ingredient cost, Mr. Speaker. The individual has to pay the dispensing fee.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was referring to your departmental drug subsidization program costs that are projected in your budget.

Will the minister confirm if a departmental committee is looking at this, and is your department considering limiting access to seniors with low incomes and those people who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement?

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

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

We have nothing under contemplation that is specific toward the drug program at the moment. Matters with respect to budgetary decisions on all government programs, as well as the institutional sector are taken in the normal course of budgetary decisions.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Residents of nursing homes require a considerable amount of drugs and many of these qualify for subsidy under your department's program.

I ask the minister if he will inform this House how such drugs are purchased and is there a competitive process?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: For the most part, the purchasing of products, the consumables, drugs and that sort of thing in the institutional sector are co-ordinated through the NHNHA. That is the organization that of course represents the long-term care sector and the institutional sector. The private, personal care homes basically are individual boarding houses, if you like, or individual operations. In those settings individuals get drugs –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: In nursing homes? Nursing homes would be handled substantially, as far as I know, along the lines of how drugs are purchased for other institutions. I gather you are talking about drugs that are consumed in the nursing homes by individuals. If that is the case, these people get their drugs as anybody else in the community gets them, I would think. If there are separate arrangements or special arrangements with certain pharmacies or suppliers, then that would be a different situation.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know he has the flu and he is under medication but I'm not sure if he mistook - the question I asked: Residents in nursing homes who have individual prescriptions filled, I understand, are done through a system and a process. I ask the minister if all of those prescriptions by individuals that get subsidy under his program, how are they filled, and what process, and is that open for a competitive process?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is 50 per cent accurate this morning and that is a bit of a record for him. I am under the flu but I'm not under medication. I have a clear head, I have a clear heart and a clear mind, and I'm otherwise functioning in as normal a capacity as I ever had.

To the question that he put, rather than give him piecemeal information what I will do is undertake to find out exactly and provide to him the information as to how drugs are purchased on behalf of the people who are long-term care residents of nursing homes.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. The Year of the Arts proposal for the Cabot celebrations was $3.4 million, of which $1.2 million the Arts Council asked the Province to deliver on. The individuals and groups in the arts said they would raise $1.2 million and the rest they asked the government to deliver on, they will make up the balance. I'm asking this minister: Does he really think the Year of the Arts can properly proceed with the $500,000 his department has stated they will receive?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm delighted actually that the hon. Member for Placentia and the critic asked this particular question. I hope that he has been covering and following the news about the particular series of events.

In the last few days there has been some extensive media coverage through CBC Radio and other avenues. I know this is an issue that is of very great concern, Mr. Speaker, to the arts community at this point in time. I think what we have been trying to explain publicly through a morning show appearance yesterday morning and also on Cross Talk yesterday afternoon in considerable depth, is that there were a series and level of expectation raised with respect to the Cabot Corporation and its overtures to the arts community in developing a plan, Mr. Speaker, for a Year of the Arts as a significant part of the celebrations in 1997.

It is very understandable, at this point in time, that the representatives of the arts community that involved themselves very heavily in that planning process in trying to put together a proposal that they are expressing, quite understandably, some frustration and disappointment at the fact that the level of money that the government has decided that we can put forward for that particular part of the exercise in 1997, will not come anywhere close, Mr. Speaker, to meeting the expectations and the needs that were outlined in the plan presented to the Cabot Corporation. We are going to meet, Mr. Speaker, with -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are going to meet with representatives of the arts council early in the new year and try and find out from them what the best level of activity is that they can support with the amount of money that is available to them being (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CAREEN: Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council proposal was about home grown entertainment that would promote the talent and culture of this Province. Their activities were planned to cover the whole years events in 1997. The Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation plans to spend $625,000 on festival 500 which is bringing in entertainment from outside the Province and which will only cover a fraction of the year's entertainment, seems out of whack. I know it is disappointing to our own arts council but I would like to ask the minister how his department is going to make up for this gross discrepancy?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure I really understood the last part of the question but I did want to take the opportunity to respond in reference to the choral festival. I think the hon. member should know, Mr. Speaker, and it is worthwhile for everybody in the Province to know that when you take another event that is going to be supported by the government through this exercise, in the range of just over $600,000, being the choral festival, that it is not just a matter of people coming from inside or outside the Province.

That festival, Mr. Speaker, which we have been trying to find the right opportunity to organize for almost a decade in the Province, will feature choirs that have an international reputation - from Newfoundland, because every time that Newfoundland choirs have competed in international competitions, they have been rated very highly, and it is an area where we have been granted accolades around the world.

There are going to be sixteen choirs from the Province participating in that, along with eight Canadian choirs of some renown and eight international choirs. I do not believe that the representatives of the Arts communities are really trying to pit one event against the other. I think the real sense is that most people are very pleased that the opportunity to go ahead with a choral festival of some significance, which hopefully will be repeated annually after that as a major event in the Province to attract choirs and visitors on an ongoing basis, will be a success.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister is now making a speech.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I hope the choral groups are more in harmony than he is with the Arts Council and other groups in this Province.

Last June - June 16, the Premier and Minister Tobin announced an Economic Renewal program of $100 million over a five-year period, cost-shared federally and provincially. The items covered were aquaculture, tourism and information technologies. I ask the minister: would they be entertaining the use of some of these monies for Cabot 1997 celebrations, letting things go down the tube, and having the Arts Council be the weekend of the Arts 97 instead of the Year Arts 97?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This being a very serious issue, I think it deserves to be treated as such in the sense that the economic renewal agreement that the hon. member references will likely be signed sometime later in this fiscal year - we fully expect, and we certainly hope so. The Premier, in leading the discussions on behalf of the Province, is trying to finalize that agreement with the Federal Government at this point in time. In the contemplation of it, there is an allocation that we have looked at from the very beginning that will be put aside for some things related to the celebrations in 1997; but, in the context of that renewal agreement, there has not been any contemplation that there will be money set aside for arts development, or anything of that nature, as part of that economic renewal agreement. The references to the Cabot 500 celebrations in that year are for providing necessary infrastructure in different locations throughout the Province, to accommodate other events that are already definitely going to occur and will need some physical improvements in different parts of the Province to allow them to be presented in the different communities of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The issue itself, that the first question related to, is a very serious one, and we will be meeting with representatives of the Arts Council very early in the new year to try to find out that really what we have is a circumstance where a certain level of expectation was created, but I think now we will be able to get back to a point in time where we understand that the $500,000, rather than being an insignificant amount, while not sufficient to fulfil the plans that were outlined and developed, it will be a significant boost to the arts community and arts development in the Province in that year, along with other regular funding.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Social Services.

One of the most important aspects of social services in our Province is that of children's care. One of the most important jobs, I believe, is that of a child protection worker. It has come to my attention that in recent cuts to the department, the minister has decided to lay off some of the child protection workers. I would ask the minister to confirm this, and I ask her also to confirm how many cases child protection workers are working on in her department at the present time.

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

MS YOUNG: To the first question, the answer is no, Mr. Speaker, and to the second question, that varies from day to day, and right at this particular moment I just could not tell him how many cases each social worker is working on. The last figure I heard from the child protection unit was, I think, roughly about thirty per social worker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been informed that two child protection workers' positions were redundant and were not filled. Eighty cases that those two child protection workers in the department. I would like to ask the minister: Is it not true that these eighty cases have been spread out over the two other workers? I ask the minister: Are there any plans to put a cap on how many cases each child protection worker would have to deal with?

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

MS YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, with regard to putting a cap on, while it might sound like a wonderful idea, it is not really the right thing to do. Because some of the cases are very complex and may take a number of hours to deal with. However, there may be some cases that are looked at, they are unfounded, allegations of sexual abuse or any kind of abuse to the child. Therefore, they go unfounded and it does not take as much time as some of the more complex cases that we deal with on an ongoing basis.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, it has also come to my attention that there has been a 100 per cent turnaround in child protection workers in the child protection unit of Social Services over the past year or so, a 100 per cent turnaround due to the anxiety and frustration that these people have to work in on a daily basis. I would like to ask the minister: Would she confirm this, and would she find dollars to put some extra child protection workers in place in this Province to help the children of this Province?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to the questions that the member has put forward, there are a number of people who leave Social Services to move into other areas of work. With regard to the child welfare social workers, we are finding that people move out from that area for a multitude of reasons. Some may, indeed, be stress-related; however, there is maternity leave, there are injuries, there is sick leave, there are people moving to other areas of work. It is an ongoing, continuous, I guess, change in some cases. These are certainly out of our control. I mean, we can't control pregnancies, we can't control injuries, and there are a number of things that we can't control. People do move on to other positions.

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

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Since the last enactment of the municipalities act in 1979 there has been, of course, talk in the last couple of years of the new act being brought before the House. I ask the minister if it is his intention to introduce the new municipalities act in the Spring session.

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

MR. REID: No, Mr. Speaker, not in the Spring session. The act is finished. It is now being printed and being reviewed by the committee, which includes the Federation of Municipalities and the administrators. There are a few little tidying up matters that we have to include in it. I am sure the hon. member understands that with that particular act, every day something is changing. We are trying to keep ahead of everything. We are hoping that the date the committee has set right now would be the Fall of next year rather than the Spring.

With a bill of that size, I would think the Government House Leader would prefer to deal with that in legislation in the Fall rather than the Spring sitting, because most of the time of the Spring sitting is taken up with the provincial Budget, so it would be next Fall.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount, on a supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister, and reflecting on the issues that arise from the Tock case which I questioned him on a few weeks ago, municipalities are finding themselves in a very awkward position. I know of one case where a municipality is being sued because they put salt on the roads and polluted wells, and also, the same municipality, because they didn't put salt on the roads, is being sued by a driver who had an accident.

Will the new act address those issues of liability where municipalities find themselves in an absolutely no-win situation?

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

MR. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that a number of situations similar to the one the hon. member mentioned will be addressed in the new act. In fact, I think it was because a number of cases actually went to court and decisions were rendered; it was probably back some two or three years ago, the reason why we implemented the idea of changing the whole act, and doing it as quickly as possible. Another one, in particular, that we are dealing with from a justice point of view, is the Wabana situation and the court case out there.

The member is absolutely correct, Mr. Speaker, when he says that, yes, there will be a number of those inadequacies, for want of a better word, addressed in the new act, and I am hoping that the act will make things a lot clearer and provide municipalities around this Province with protection, as it relates to instances like snow clearing, for example, water and sewer block-up, volunteer fire departments and other agencies of municipalities. I am hoping that this new act will clear up a number of these adequacies.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the minister responsible for Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

A couple years ago, there was a commission set up, headed by Mr. Scott Simmons, looking into the areas, the land-development areas so-called, around the St. John's urban area, and that pertains specifically to the area in and around the Goulds - most of the land was in around the Goulds area.

That report was given to the minister, as I said, a couple years ago. I think there are something like forty-seven to forty-nine recommendations made on that particular report pertaining to this area. Could the minister tell the House, if it is true that there were about forty-eight or forty-nine recommendations, how many of those recommendations were dealt with and instituted?

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

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, the report was presented to my predecessor on the issue of - land consolidation, actually, is what you are referring to, in the Goulds area. There were some forty-five, forty-six recommendations. I cannot tell you how many have been acted upon -I certainly can report that later; I know some of them have been, but as to the specific number, I can't really give you that right now.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I can tell the minister there are approximately twenty-three to twenty-four of the recommendations implemented but, at the same time, the minister had reservations about some of the other recommendations not being implemented.

Could the minister confirm to the House that there was an alternate report given to the minister to deal with the remaining recommendations with which his department had some concerns?

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

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The report that the hon. member is referring to certainly was not presented to the current minister. There were some recommendations that presented difficulties and there were further suggestions as to how these difficulties could be dealt with in the future. That has been done up to this point but the recommendations are being acted on in accordance with the report that was provided to the minister of the day.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, my second supplementary to the minister asked if there was an alternate report given to him pertaining to the other recommendations. He did not really answer that, `yes' or `no' - all I require is a yes or no. He can do that on the next one. Mr. Speaker, these land consolidation funds, only pertaining to the Avalon area, mainly in and around the Goulds - could the minister give the House a list of names, especially in the last four or five years, of the people who avail of this particular land consolidation scheme and the total dollars that were paid out to individuals?

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

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If it is within my right to do so, I will certainly endeavour to provide the information you are asking for.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

It is probably a poor time to ask, seeing it is Christmastime, when we are thinking about Santa Claus and all that. I would like to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, how much money did he pay to Bill Hogan for the study and when is he tabling the report?

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

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

Let me say to the hon. member that government is the largest employer in the Province. When we were fortunate enough to obtain the services of Mr. Hogan -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: We are dealing with a very serious problem, from a standpoint of Occupational Health and Safety, within the biggest employer in the Province. We had to put together, of course, a whole structure relating to lost control and claims management, etcetera.

Now, Mr. Hogan's twenty-seven years in Occupational Health and Safety, I would suggest to hon. members, was crucial, and we were very fortunate to have that expertise. Mr. Hogan put in place committee structures throughout all the departments of government, Crown corporations of government, organized the committees and organized details related to them.

One of the most important things, I say to the member, and we should remember this, is that government must pay attention to the area of claims management. Mr. Hogan brought a new approach to government on dealing with claims management. He did an exceptionally good job. We thank Mr. Hogan for the two years that he worked on behalf of and with government. I can say to the member honestly, that government now, through Treasury Board and other departments, are starting to reap. I say not only are we protecting our employees but we are now dealing with the compensable problems that we are having and we have Mr. Hogan to thank for it.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I never questioned the fact that Mr. Hogan made a big contribution to government. I did not question that at all, and I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Hogan, in comparison to the minister, knows twice as much about Occupational Health and Safety than the minister does - no doubt about that either. But the question I asked the minister is: For how long was he on contract, how much money was he paid, and are you going to table a copy of his report?

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

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Hogan was on contract for two full years. The cost was $150,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: What!

MR. MURPHY: We can now do an evaluation and show clearly, I say to the member, that we have saved well in excess of what Mr. Hogan cost us; I can assure you of that. I totally assure the member of that.

As I said, in all good, sound, solid prevention programs, it was money well spent, I say to the member, ten times over.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Finance.

Back in April, when the 1995 Budget was presented, government changed the way of tax exemptions for self-employed fishermen. Under the new way of doing business, the fishermen pay taxes and then remit their invoice to the provincial sales tax office for a PST refund. I would like to ask the minister if this system is really working.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Is he aware of the fact that many fishermen now purchasing fishing gear are doing so outside the Province? They place their order one day and have it delivered the next day, thus not paying any provincial sales tax here in the Province whatsoever - another instance of government changing something which worked at one time and is now taking business away from local businesses here in our communities. Is the minister aware of that?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure one thing has anything to do with the other. The fact that government changed its system had nothing to do with people purchasing outside the Province; that has always been a factor in our provincial economy. People know, or should know, that even if you purchase outside the Province you are obligated to remit the provincial sales tax, in any event. To that end, we have auditors who travel to other provinces, and the provinces have an arrangement whereby if they know a purchase is made in that Province they supply us with the information. We also ascertain it, and we then advise the people who purchase outside the Province of their liability. If people fail to do it we charge penalties and interest on it, so we have a regime in place to catch that. It is not foolproof, as is any tax scheme, and I am not aware that there is a significant problem. If it is, I would like to learn more about it.

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

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in the last sitting of the House before Christmas to present a petition on behalf of residents of my district who are once again finding themselves, as they head into the Christmas holidays, without needed dollars to put them through. The prayer and the purpose of the petition is for people who are seeking some type of employment, desperately needed employment. The prayer of the petition is as follows. `To the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland, in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador asks for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer: We the undersigned hereby request the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to immediately provide emergency funding to generate desperately needed employment in our communities. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.'

Mr. Speaker, this is one of many petitions I have presented here on behalf of the constituents of St. Mary's - The Capes. Because of the crisis with the shutdown in our Province of our main resource, the fishery, many people find themselves left out in the cold. I rose here on several occasions to bring the concerns of these people forward and I do so again through this petition today. In our community we have many people who were indirectly working because of the fishery. We had people who were working as baby-sitters, people working in the local stores and in restaurants, the young fellows who were on the wharf cutting out cod tongues to sell and make money during the summer months, and because of the shutdown in the fishery we have lost all that. We have lost all the opportunities for those indirect jobs, Mr. Speaker.

Those are the people who have signed these petitions. They are not the people who are on the TAGS program, or not the people who have found work somewhere else. The people here are people who indirectly have lost their source of income because of the shutdown in the fishery. Because of the plan with the TAGS program, these people cannot participate in the many training programs that have been offered in the Province now, to upgrade their skills so they can find some type of employment outside the fishery, or outside the Province, for that matter. Because they are not involved directly in the TAGS program they cannot participate in those training programs.

These people have found there is no other alternative but social services, in a lot of cases. Just the other day, I spoke to a gentleman in my district who, for the first time in his life, had to turn to Social Services. There is a level of dignity that we have to consider here, Mr. Speaker, and that is why these people send their names forward through this petition to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. There is no job creation happening in this Province, there is no job creation happening in rural Newfoundland. There are jobs up in Voisey's Bay - but there is also a need to provide some type of funding out in rural communities to help people get along and get through the hard times we find ourselves in.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of negativity with those so-called job creation projects, or as they were called back through the years, the LIP programs or whatever you want to call them, the JD programs, or whatever. When you go out around rural Newfoundland you will find in many parts of rural Newfoundland, and indeed, in my district of St. Mary's - the Capes, many great things that have come to our communities through these job development programs - new fire halls, water lines, community halls, and recreation facilities put in place for the children. All these have been done through those job development programs.

Now, at the same time, I am one to admit that a fair amount of those job development programs were a waste of money. There were some concerns among rural associations and councils who sponsored those projects that the work wasn't being done, but I believe that the purpose is not to throw out the baby with the bath water, and I believe that is what we have done when government decided not to fund any more job development projects or some types of job creation programs.

Mr. Speaker, in the community where I live, and in the district I represent, there are many people who are hurting this Christmas, and many people who are finding it very difficult as Christmas approaches to put food on the table and provide for their children. As we look around, we see many people who are in desperate shape, and that is why people put forward this petition today. I ask the minister in all sincerity to take into consideration, not only the plight of the people in St. Mary's - The Capes who signed this petition, but indeed the plight of many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are finding it very, very difficult, especially at this time of year. There has to be a level of compassion in government. I hope that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations does not rely on the Federal Government to provide -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MANNING: - all the assistance that is needed for these people, and that they will find some dollars to put forward to help the people of this Province. With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of presenting the petition.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before I ask you to call orders, perhaps I could take a minute to indicate the matters we will ask the House to address today.

In accordance with the arrangements I outlined when we adjourned yesterday, we have only third readings. In fact, there are thirty-five third readings we are going to ask the House to address today. So if somebody asks us what we do, the answer is we make laws, and this is the day we do it. Because when we deal with those, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor will attend, and I understand is prepared to consider giving assent if the Assembly should pass bills and recommend them to him. I have spoken to members opposite. My understanding is we can anticipate roughly 11:30 a.m. Now, that is not a fixed deadline but -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) this morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Eleven thirty this morning, if my friend, the Member for Ferryland can be held down. I notice his colleagues for Burin - Placentia West and Grand Bank have each got firm hold of his hands, one hand each, to keep him down.

What we are going to do is start with Order No. 36, go to Order No. 33, then go to Order No. 31, and go right through to Order No. 3. That will leave only two bills for third reading, Order No. 32, which are the Hydro act amendments, and then finally Order No. 2, which are the electoral boundaries amendments.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend, the Member for Grand Bank, I am not afraid of anything at all. Having dealt with him for a couple of years there are no fears left in the world, Mr. Speaker. He is in a category with one of my colleagues who asked me why, after wearing red ties, I showed up today wearing a blue tie. The answer is: How can you have a red Santa Claus on a red tie? My colleague is still thinking about that.

Mr. Speaker, would you please call Order No. 36? Then let's just take them as they come in accordance with the order I have just given, Order No. 36 through to Order No. 33, and then Order No. 31 through to Order No. 3.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if we could just take all of the - these are all third readings.

MR. ROBERTS: They are, Mr. Speaker, and if the House so wishes, you could simply ask if we agree to read a third time the bills standing as Order Nos. 36 through 33, and then Order Nos. 31 through 3 on today's Order Paper, if Your Honour considers that appropriate.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

On motion, the following bills read a third time, ordered passed and their titles be as on the Order Paper:

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

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

A bill, "An Act Respecting Provincial Offences." (Bill No. 47)

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Limitations." (Bill No. 38)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act And The Mineral Holdings Impost Act." (Bill No. 21)

A bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law." (Bill No. 48)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable Television Companies Act." (Bill No. 51)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act (No. 2)." (Bill No. 44)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Standards Of Conduct For Non-Elected Public Office Holders." (Bill No. 41)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Leaseholds In St. John's Act." (Bill No. 40)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Investigation Of Fatalities." (Bill No. 36)

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act." (Bill No. 45)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act." (Bill No. 26)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act." (Bill No. 4)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Animal Protection Act." (Bill No. 3)

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

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

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill No. 25)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act, The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, The Memorial University Pensions Act, Chapter 18 Of The Statutes Of Newfoundland, 1993 And The Pensions Contributions Reduction Act." (Bill No. 29)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act." (Bill No. 10)

A bill, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting Credit Unions." (Bill No. 28)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act And The Summary Proceedings Act." (Bill No. 27)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Revision And Consolidation Of Subordinate Legislation." (Bill No. 7)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Children's Law Act." (Bill No. 34)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act." (Bill No. 15)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act." (Bill No. 17)

A bill, "An Act To Provide For The Transfer Of The Trusteeship And Agency Business Of Central Guaranty Trust Company To TD Trust Company." (Bill No. 30)

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

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Social Workers Association Act." (Bill No. 2)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Hospital And Nursing Home Association Act." (Bill No. 9)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Could we please call Order 32, which is third reading of the bill, "An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act, The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 and other Acts".

Motion, third reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act, The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 and other Acts." (Bill No. 35)

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before we adjourn for this holiday season, I think I would be remiss if I did not have one last word to say on this bill regarding Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

This bill, I suppose, is the culmination of a hallmark of the Wells Administration since they have come to office. The Premier has been dogged, if nothing else, in his pursuit of his goal, which he claims is still a valid goal, to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. This particular bill does, indeed, fall short of privatization of Hydro, but it is, nonetheless, a goodly number of steps along the way.

This particular bill makes certain changes in the structure and procedures of operation of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, all of which tend to make it more and more like a private company such as, for instance, Newfoundland Light and Power. One has to wonder if Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has any sort of public policy purpose any longer under this government. The shares in the corporation are held in trust for the people of the Province by the government of the Province, but essentially, it is losing all the aspects of a Crown corporation. The Public Tender Act, in particular, no longer applies to the Hydro Corporation, and one is pushed to the limit to understand why that would be absolutely necessary.

The Premier's call for efficiency in the Hydro Corporation is, I suppose, a laudable goal in its own right, but how avoidance of public tenders would help achieve that particular goal is beyond me. When you have an entity owned by the people through the Crown there is always an element of trust involved, and the exercise of public trust with regard to the expenditures of monies in the public domain are, to some extent, circumscribed by the Public Tender Act, and until such time as the Hydro Corporation is indeed privatized, as would appear to be the goal of this particular government, I fail to see why the Hydro Corporation, as a public body, should be exempt from the Public Tender Act.

Mr. Speaker, governments in this day and age, with the increasing demands for accountability on the part of the general public, are hard-pressed to throw money, contracts, consultancies, etc., the way of their political friends. There are limited opportunities so to do. This government so did in the case of some hospital contracts some time ago, but rather than saying, `We wish to make an exception to the Public Tender Act to take care of some political friends of ours,' they said, `We will try to take care of them by playing around with the Public Tender Act'. It blew up in their faces, basically, landed them in court, and had a judgement brought down on them that they indeed did breach the Public Tender Act, and I think the political damage to the reputation of government in general, and to the Liberal Party in particular, would have been far less had they been up front with people and said, `We don't want to obey the rules; we want to look after our friends, and we are making an exception to the rule in this particular case to look after our friends.' That would have given them a black eye politically. What they did gave them two black eyes politically, so the ilk is still there on the part of this government to so do and one has to wonder just what abuses possibly could occur in a Crown owned Hydro corporation run by a government appointed board of directors that is in no way, shape or form answering to the laws regarding public tendering in this Province. That, Mr. Speaker, is a major concern and one that should not go unnoted before this bill passes into law.

The other major item that we pointed out in Opposition, Mr. Speaker, is that the changes in the procedures and structures of Newfoundland Hydro will inevitably increase costs for the corporation. Now Newfoundland Hydro does not sell biscuits, it does not sell flour, it does not sell gasoline. It sells hydro electric power, a good chunk of which it generates through its own machinery and equipment throughout the Province. It is a developer and distributor of hydro electric power to the people of the Province. The only product it has to sell, either directly to the people in certain areas like in the district that I represent or in certain areas here on the Avalon where they wholesale power to Newfoundland Light and Power who in turn retail it to the general public. The only source of income Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has for the most part, is in the sale of electricity. So when its costs are increased by virtue of impositions on it from Cabinet order, by virtue of impositions on it from the Public Utilities Board or by virtue of impositions on it with regard to structural and procedural changes, Mr. Speaker, those costs inevitably will be passed on to the public of Newfoundland and Labrador through an application, through the Public Utilities Board, for higher electrical rates.

So, Mr. Speaker, I won't belabour the point, we have said it over and over. There has been considerable debate. The government saw fit to cause considerable uproar in this Assembly by calling a closure motion very early in the game on discussions on Hydro. Events which, let's say, led to my untimely exit from this Chamber but, Mr. Speaker, I am back again. I stand on what I said about Newfoundland Hydro before I left the Chamber and I say it again that this is a policy change ultimately following the Premier's goal of privatizing Hydro. In the short term it is going to increase the cost of operating Hydro. The people will have to pay those costs. The other thing that government has done in recent years, through its budget, is ask Hydro to become a cash cow for government to basically raise taxes for the government through increased electricity rates. Either way, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province will pay through higher electricity rates. A degree of public trust will be eroded by virtue of the fact that the Public Tender Act no longer applies to this corporation and we think that is simply not good enough.

The government does not have a mandate to do what its doing with regard to Hydro. It is putting it on the road to privatization. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have spoken loudly and soundly that they don't want that policy direction at this stage in our history and until such time, Mr. Speaker, as the people give this government or another government the mandate so to do, I do not honestly believe that this government has the mandate to do what it is about. However, Mr. Speaker, it does have the majority in this Assembly and no doubt will have its way with regard to this particular bill but I for one, as a member for a district served directly by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in terms of providing electricity to consumers, I for one, as the mines and energy critic for the Opposition, would be remiss if I let this Assembly close for Christmas without putting these concerns on the record. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is important to speak for, I guess, one last time the position in this session of the House on this legislation. Legislation was introduced really as part of the, I suppose, as part of the Premier's political swan song to leave on the books a piece of legislation which would provide for the accomplishment of the privatization of Hydro which the people of this Province rejected so resoundingly in the forum of public opinion when it was introduced directly, but what we see here, significant changes to the Hydro Corporation Act that create a class of shareholders who are unnamed in the bill, but who are given the authority that is currently held by the Cabinet to appoint the chief executive officer to give directions to the corporation, to establish authorized share capital for the corporation, to establish common shares, preferred shares, to determine what the rights, restrictions, redemptions, privileges, conditions or limitations of those shares that the shareholders may consider desirable; all of these functions are currently functions that are held by the Crown in right of the Province with the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

What purpose, other than to pave the way for the next step of putting shares in private hands, could these provisions have, Mr. Speaker? It is patently obvious that this is the intention of government, and they go further in this legislation and effectively create a private corporation. The only thing public about it is that the shares are currently owned, and I say currently owned by the people of the Province. In all other respects, the corporation is expected to act as if it were a private corporation. Further provisions and powers are given to the Cabinet in the legislation to in fact direct the Public Utilities Board to treat Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro exactly the same as it treats Newfoundland Light and Power.

Other provisions of the act remove certain other public policy provisions and obligations from the Hydro Corporation. The Public Tender Act is amended to strike out the requirement that the Hydro Corporation follow the Public Tender Act. What public purpose does that serve, Mr. Speaker? What public purpose does that serve if, or unless, the Premier and the government determine the public purpose to be to privatize Hydro? The Provincial Preference Act deletes Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro from the requirements of following the Provincial Preference Act. The Freedom of Information Act is amended to protect Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and its activities from enquiry by the public. The Crown Lands Act is amended to take away specific, special provisions for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro; the Labour Relations Act is to apply and not the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, all of those changes are made for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to pave the way to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Now the Official Opposition has concentrated its criticism of the bill on the increase in the power rates and that's a significant event that will come from the changes that are made here. The same increases that would have been part of the privatization scheme that was proposed the last time but they go hand in hand, Mr. Speaker, the privatization of Hydro and the increase in power rates to the public go hand in hand, and both will come from the passage of this legislation. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the changes to this act take away the first right of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to the water power resources of the Province by amending the act to remove specific provisions that give it that first right. In addition, the legislation removes the power of the Corporation to expropriate lands for the purposes of hydro generation and transmission, which of course it has now, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. But that power is also taken away.

Mr. Speaker, the mission statement of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as it now exists and as has been set forth in the annual reports of the Corporation was as follows: To provide electricity to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador at the lowest possible price consistent with reliable service and safety of its employees. That is the mission that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro had and described in that way, or words very much like that, in their annual report. That is the role that the public corporation undertook. The role and the potentiality of the Hydro corporation to be and continue to be the engine of economic growth and development in this Province is being taken away by this bill the same way as it would have been had the previous legislation, which specifically and directly and openly attempted to privatize the Hydro Corporation last year.

I opposed it then, Mr. Speaker, and I oppose it now. Let the record show that that opposition continues to this day and will continue beyond the passage of this legislation.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act, The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 And Other Acts," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 35)

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 2, Bill No. 31, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Electoral Boundaries Act.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to have a very few brief words on this bill. I think that the government is not doing nearly enough -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think that what government is doing in this regard makes absolutely no sense. I think it is unfortunate. It make absolutely no sense whatsoever for the Minister of Justice to go up in his office and start drawing lines across boundaries in this Province. The district of Burin - Placentia West has been that same district since 1975, I believe. In 1975 those boundaries were put in place for Burin - Placentia West. The district has been represented, Mr. Speaker, by myself for just about fourteen years, by Mr. Hollett for a term, and by Mr. Canning for a term.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Barry.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Barry never represented Burin - Placentia West. He represented Placentia West. The Burin part was not part of it. The town of Burin was in Grand Bank. It was called Burin district. That district has been represented by three of us, Mr. Canning, Mr. Hollett, and myself, since 1975, and it was not too big a district to represent, and I think it is unfortunate that this government has decided to downsize the district of Burin - Placentia West. I think it is regrettable. It was not a district that was hard to represent or impossible to represent, and I say to the people of Winterland, to the people of Lewin's Cove, to the people of Salmonier and Epworth, that there is no need for them to have left the district of Burin - Placentia West except for the arrogance of this government and the contempt they have shown to these people. There is no need for them to be leaving that district and going to the district of Grand Bank, none whatsoever.

There is no need for the community of Monkstown to be leaving the district of Burin - Placentia West, part of Placentia Bay where they have always been. There is no need for them to be leaving that district and put in the Bellevue district. I say that it has been a great honour to represent the people in these communities. I have been honoured, privileged, and proud to have represented all of them. It is with regret that I see the government moving to take these people from my district. I am not about to say there will be no one who can represent them better than I did. I am not about to say that, Mr. Speaker. That is up to those people to decide.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are a good member.

MR. TOBIN: I thank both ministers for saying I have been a good member. I appreciate it. I say that these people I know do not want to leave the district of Burin - Placentia West, and I do not want them to leave the district of Burin - Placentia West. I will vote against it, Mr. Speaker, as I have in every stage so far, and I will continue to vote against it. Burin - Placentia was a unique district. It took all the west side of Placentia Bay and kept it in one district where it should be, but today when this bill is passed and bullied through the House they will no longer be one, but will go in two other districts, Grand Bank in Fortune Bay and in the district of Bellevue that is Fortune Bay, Trinity Bay, and Placentia Bay.

I feel very sad, Mr. Speaker, to lose these people, this hard working farming community in Winterland, real hard working, as fine a people as you could ever meet. Lewin's Cove is tied in Epworth with Burin with the fisheries, as Monkstown is a fishing community. It is not a very proud day for me and it is not a very happy day to see these people taken from this district.

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I really wish government had not seen fit to do it. I regret they have done it, and I can only say to these people from the bottom of my heart a sincere thank you for giving me the opportunity to represent them, all of them without exception, regardless of their political stripe, regardless of anything. I have been proud and honoured to represent each and every one of them and I really regret this day.

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, since this is the last opportunity that a member in this Legislature will have to voice his concerns about this bill, or his support for it, I want to be on record to say that I do not understand what has happened. I do not support it, and never have supported it from day one. Everybody who has been associated with the bill or with the renumeration knows that.

The district of Windsor - Buchans as it now exists have elected me five times. I came within seventy-four votes of being elected in Windsor - Buchans six times and the district is about to disappear, Mr. Speaker. Half roughly will go with Green Bay and half will go with Grand Falls. There is not a person who I have ever spoke to in the district that supports what has happened to Windsor - Buchans, and that is understandable. I haven't met a person in Newfoundland who understands the logic behind the make-up of the new district, when one considers that part of Windsor is gone with Green Bay, yet Badger that sits right smack between Green Bay and Windsor is with Grand Falls.

I want to take this opportunity to be on record as saying that I had hoped, as the member who spoke previously, I regret what has happened. I want to, in Hansard and in the records of this House of Assembly, be on record of expressing my concern, expressing the views of the people who I represent, with regards to what their political future will be in as far as electoral boundaries are concerned.

The people from Buchans, Millertown, Buchan's Junction and Badger have no objections to joining Grand Falls. The House will know that prior to 1975 Buchans, Badger, Millertown, Buchan's Junction were indeed a part of the Grand Falls district, as was Windsor. That recommendation was made from Day 1. From the time the boundaries commission was set up that recommendation was made to the various boundary commissions that that is the way it should be. I recognize, I understand the dilemma of the government. Once 10 per cent variance was established there was no way that that district could then exist as we were recommending. I am not convinced and I never will be convinced that we could not have accepted, in the case of Windsor - Buchans because of the geographic problems there, a 25 per cent variance which would have solved the problem as is seen by the people of Windsor - Buchans.

I just take this opportunity to go on record for my own conscience's sake. I believe I owe it to the people who have elected me over the past twenty years to point out that I too regret this development. I too regret that the District of Windsor - Buchans - sometimes we stand up and we use words like historical. I agree with people who say there is nothing great or historical in the sense that the district has only existed for twenty years. But they were very proud of the fact that they were Windsor - Buchans. There was a commonality amongst the people of Windsor, Buchans, Badger and Millertown. Their economy was based on the same resources, there was a great interaction between the various communities in that district. When this bill is proclaimed that will be gone.

I have not run into anyone in the district who objects or is concerned because they are going with another district. Buchans shows no regrets or sorrow or ill feelings that it is going with Grand Falls. Part of Windsor doesn't resist or resent the fact that it is going with Springdale. They are just saying: Why was all this necessary in the situation we have in Windsor - Buchans? I personally don't believe it was, I wished it could have been otherwise. The government saw fit to accept the recommendations of the commission that in effect eliminates and wipes out forever the District of Windsor - Buchans. I don't believe that it is in the long-term better interests of either the District of Windsor - Buchans or the electoral process in Newfoundland in the first instance.

Again I wish the two districts as they will be made up - the part of the district that goes with Springdale, Green Bay - I wish them well. I have no doubt that their concerns will be well represented by the elected member of the new district. I'm sure that also applies to the part of my district that will go with Grand Falls. As long as I am a member of this Assembly, or as long as I am given the privilege to represent those people, I will do the job to the best of my ability.

I want to say something else. I want to say to the people of the District of Windsor - Buchans that regardless how the district is split, regardless if a portion of my constituents who have been my constituents for twenty years go with Green Bay, or a portion of my constituents who have been my constituents for twenty years goes with the District of Grand Falls, I will be, as I have been for twenty years, in this House or outside of this House of Assembly, available, Mr. Speaker, to help deal with the concerns and work for the betterment of the people of what is now the District of Windsor - Buchans. Thank you very much.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just like a few brief words. It is probably appropriate that I follow on the heels of the current Member for Windsor - Buchans. I understand that the member regrets that the District of Windsor - Buchans will be no more, in the same way as I regret that the District of Green Bay that I currently represent, that was previously represented by a former premier, Mr. Peckford, will be no more.

As to why this happened, let there be no doubt whatsoever, this has occurred because of the greed of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, simply put. It is a hard thing to say just before Christmas but that is the bottom line on it. There was due process put in place here. The Liberal Party couldn't live with due process. It manipulated on a couple of separate occasions the electorial boundaries redistribution process, and what came out of it in the end were districts called Windsor - Springdale, Grand Falls - Buchans.

The government would not show any flexibility about making the newly amalgamated town of Grand Falls - Windsor into one district. It bound itself in very tight with a plus or minus 10 per cent rule on population. It didn't allow the person drawing up the boundaries any real flexibility in making the boundaries make sense. The Member for Windsor - Buchans is correct. What has been done in Central Newfoundland with regard to electoral boundaries does not make any sense. But be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, very shortly the Lieutenant-Governor will be coming into this Chamber and signing his name to a bill which will make law a forty-eight seat House of Assembly in which the Central Newfoundland area will see the Baie Verte district pick up a piece of the old Green Bay district, Springdale, South Brook to Brighton be added to most of the former town of Windsor to form a district called Windsor - Springdale, and the remainder of Windsor and Grand Falls going together with the Buchans - Badger area to form Grand Falls - Buchans.

That will be the law of the land. All I can say to the people who I hope to represent after the next election is: Welcome to Windsor - Springdale. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, like some of the members who have spoken here this morning, have some concerns with this bill. I spoke in the Committee stage of this bill and moved an amendment to the effect that I felt that it just didn't make sense, the division that was used when they broke up the District of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir and they put Ramea and Grey River into the eastern end of that district. It just doubled the work of the member who is going to represent that eastern district, and it made it more difficult. It certainly didn't do anything to cut down on the cost of servicing that district.

Not only that, at the time that I spoke in Committee stage of this bill I tabled letters from the various towns that were going to be affected, Burgeo, Ramea and Grey River, to the effect that they didn't want this to happen. For that reason I am opposed to this bill. As I said in my previous remarks, the government certainly has the right to - and legally had to call for redistribution. But the 25 per cent tolerance, if it was put into effect, it should have been up or down, and that was what was included in the original direction that was given to the commission.

I still fail to see how a vote in François is only worth a third of what a vote is in West St. Modeste. I have serious problems about it and I feel that this division is improper, the way that this district was broken up by taking Ramea and Grey River and putting them into the eastern part of that district. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, if it is in order, I would like to move, seconded by my friend, the Member for Windsor - Buchans, that the district of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir be broken up, with Ramea and Grey River going into the LaPoile district and from François east be into the Cape La Hune district.

I would like to move at this time, that that motion that I put in the committee stage - the division once again be used to break up that district. It is fixed within the 25 per cent up or down. I move that, Mr. Speaker, at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

MR. SPEAKER: No, the Chair does not have a copy of the amendment. I wonder if the hon. -

MR. ROBERTS: No, I have not seen it either but the submission I would make, and I will try to find the reference here in Beauchesne, is that the amendment is not admissible at third reading. At third reading, the only amendments admissible, in my understanding, is a six-month hoist or some variation there on it, a three-month hoist or a twenty-six-month hoist. So I understand what leads my hon. friend to suggest it, but my submission to Your Honour is, it is out of order at this stage in the proceeding.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the Chair has just consulted with the Table briefly on it and that type of amendment would have to come in the Committee stage. The six-month hoist or the reasoned amendment of that nature would be acceptable in third reading but the hon. member's amendment is not acceptable - it is out of order.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to make a few comments on the changes in electoral boundaries in the Province and the bill that is before the House today. I think I would be remiss if I did not make a few comments on it. As a new member elected in 1993, I represent the district of St. Mary's - The Capes, of which parts of it will be now joined to Ferryland district, Mr. Speaker - the communities of Trepassey, Biscay Bay and Portugal Cove South. The reminder of the district now will be joined with about 75 per cent of the present Placentia district. I would just like to say, that as the new member for this district and the people I represent in Trepassey, Biscay Bay and Portugal Cove South, it has been indeed an honour to represent them here in the House of Assembly. Their concerns I have brought forward to this House as best I could over the past couple of years and I look forward until the next election in remaining to bring them forth.

I am also pleased that Trepassey and the area have been joined with Ferryland in the sense that if there had to be changes made, that this was one of the proper changes to make, Mr. Speaker, and indeed that my hon. colleague, the Member for Ferryland will, I am sure, be looking forward to representing those people after the next election. We will be working together over the next year or so before the next election to make sure that the concerns of those people are brought forward to the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, the whole problem with the changes are that they affect every part of the Province and indeed, have a drastic effect on parts of rural Newfoundland, and the main concern I have is that the population of a district in rural Newfoundland is equal to the population of a district in the metro parts of the Province. That certainly is a concern, because I think it is unfair that a district in St. John's, Mr. Speaker, or some other metro part of the Province, would have the same population base as a district out in rural Newfoundland. The new district of Placentia and St. Mary's, Mr. Speaker, will have over 11,000 people and will be spread out over a vast geographical area and have to deal with many, many communities and organizations that all have their own individual problems. I think, myself, that is a concern that will be echoed over the next couple of months and indeed, into the years following, but be that as it is, the government has the right and the power to do what they are putting forward here today, and I think we have no other choice but to live with it. We have expressed our concerns through the public hearings that were held by the independent commission. We have expressed our concerns here in the House of Assembly and tried to right the wrong, as they say, but I guess we have to put up with what the government has put forward here today.

I would just like to reiterate that it has been an honour for me, and will be until the next election, to represent the people of Trepassey, Biscay Bay and Portugal Cove South. There has been a concern raised by the people of St. Shotts, in my district, as they have many connections with the Trepassey area. The people of St. Shotts raised their concern with me a couple of weeks ago concerning the fact that their development association, their schools, the Department of Highways, everything is in line with the Trepassey area, and that they now are part of the Placentia and St. Mary's district, and there was some concern. As a matter of fact, there was a public meeting in the community and they raised some concerns that they may like to be part of the Ferryland district because of their historical ties with that end of the Southern Shore.

I certainly do not have a problem with that. If the people of St. Shotts want that, we will try to work with it. I approached the Government House Leader on this particular issue, and he told me that it was too late in the House proceedings to move an amendment or to correct the boundaries because of the situation that we found ourselves in - we were past second reading and into third reading, and that is why I cannot move an amendment today. I checked with the Government House Leader a couple of weeks ago on that, and he advised me that it cannot be done in order with what is going on here in the House. But hopefully, in the Spring, we may present some petitions, and maybe an amendment may be in order at that time. I will be conferring with the Government House Leader on that.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the challenges ahead that are going to come with the new district of Placentia and St. Mary's. There will be challenges, there is no doubt, challenges for all of us to face, and I look forward to them.

We are waiting now for the Lieutenant-Governor to arrive to enact these bills, so really we have no other choice than to put up with what has come forward from the government. I just hope that when the Lieutenant-Governor arrives, his car is in good working order and that he doesn't have to get a drive back home by one of us hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, the whole boundary issue has been clouded from the start with concerns about gerrymandering and concerns about government interference, and we can argue that until the cows come home, but it is not going to change what is going to happen here today. So I just say that it has been an honour to represent the historical district of St. Mary's - The Capes, and I look forward to the challenge ahead, whatever may come.

Thank you.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Has the hon. member already spoken on this issue?

MR. FLIGHT: I thought we were into Committee where we -

MR. SPEAKER: No, no, we are in third reading.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a few comments regarding this bill.

From day one, I believed that the number of seats should be reduced reasonably, down to about forty seats. The commission had a mandate to follow initially. The initial commission, the official commission, had a mandate, forty to forty-six seats. The Government House Leader intervened and changed that mandate midstream on the thirty-second meeting out of forty when he went on behalf of government, on behalf of Cabinet, out to Clarenville. They changed that. They came back with a forty-four recommendation. Then it was changed again and a new appointment, and before it went to that appointment stage there were scenarios worked out, forty-six, forty-seven, forty-eight, one proposal of forty-eight seats.

I feel, in a time of economic restraint, when we are looking for 10 per cent budget cuts next year on a provincial Budget, trying to take $80 million out of health, when a committee spent between $400,000 and $500,000, and they changed their mandate in midstream, we should be looking at more cutting changes here. We should be looking at realigning this Province into a maximum of forty seats, or in that forty-seat range. To take four seats out of the House of Assembly will only save a pittance in comparison to the budget of the House of Assembly of $8 million, I think, for this aspect of the budget. We will have a net savings probably in the vicinity of about $100,000 a member, in that ball park. We still have mailing and other related costs that are going to be there anyway. We are still going to have the fixed costs of operating the House of Assembly here, they are going to be there, and it is only a token effort what is being done here in reducing the boundaries. It has been interfered with and gerrymandered from day one. The Government House Leader, representing government, has gerrymandered it, has thrown out and has not given any due consideration to the commission's report, Judge Mahoney's report, and changed those terms. And in a report that was indicated there, he said, in effect, the report from that commission has been a waste of time. Reference was made in meetings and in documentation to indicate it was a complete waste of taxpayers' money and time to have such a report there and then to change it.

I don't think it is appropriate. I don't think the number is appropriate to reflect the times we are asking other people in the Province to have to undergo. With cutbacks here, the members of the House of Assembly - and government, are not prepared to take the cuts that they are asking other people in this Province to take. I don't think that is acceptable. We should have to bear a proportionate share of cuts, the same as any other people around the Province.

To spend, say, $400,000 by taking away four seats in the House of Assembly when we should have followed an independent commission at arm's length and let them make a recommendation, listen to the public which they did at forty different meetings initially, I think, and another eight meetings later, at forty-eight meetings, then the commission came back. And this House should accept that independent, arm's length report and not gerrymander round with it to have no real substance.

One other point - the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir: We had an avenue to meet with the Member for Burgeo -Bay d'Espoir's request to allow a 25 per cent deviation in rural areas or any area of this Province. That 25 per cent that was there in legislation before this government changed it allowed a slightly larger urban seat up to 25 per cent, or 25 per cent less people in rural Newfoundland. The Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir and other people in more remote areas, in Labrador and the South Coast and other areas, would have that tolerance level a little greater than it is now. They closed it down to 10 per cent. They hand-cuffed the committee so that the committee couldn't do its work properly, initially with a 10 per cent deviation from the mean. The government realized the folly and then they made exceptions to that deviation there to be able to cope with it.

I think it was wrong from the beginning. I think carte blanche should have been given to the commission to do its work in accord with the people of this Province. It should not have been swayed by politicians inside this House or politicians working outside this House to affect the report of that commission. It wasn't done properly. I disagree with the process, I disagree with the final result, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls.

MR. MACKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I realize, at any moment the Lieutenant-Governor will be arriving, so I will be very brief.

However, I would like to go on record as opposing this bill, especially as it pertains to the new districts of Grand Falls - Buchans and Windsor - Springdale. Back in 1991, the government spent about $16 million on amalgamating the two towns of Grand Falls and Windsor. This was a perfect opportunity for making this particular town as one district. This could have happened if the government had allowed the 25 per cent variance there. With the population of the town of Grand Falls - Windsor with 14,693 that certainly would have been made possible. It would have also helped solidify the amalgamation that went on back in 1991. It is working very well. It would have made a lot of sense, both politically and economically, to have the town together as one district, having one member to serve the entire town. However, having said that, I will certainly look forward to and would certainly go after the new district of Grand Falls - Buchans, and I will certainly be honoured to represent people in Badger, Buchans, Millertown and Buchan's Junction.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am, however, somewhat rewarded in the amendment that was passed to allow part of the district to come back into the District of Grand Falls-Buchans. Again, Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that I would like to go on record as opposing this bill particularly as it relates to how it changes the District of Grand Falls and Windsor-Buchans.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I understand that His Honour is in the precincts of the House, but perhaps I could be allowed just a minute or two, to respond to some of the remarks made by the members who have spoken. I won't be very long, I assure members.

I want to make three points. First of all, the Member for Green Bay and I noted in his words said: it was a hard thing, and those were his exact words to say and he made some accusations about the way the ministry had conducted this. He is certainly entitled to his political opinions. The fact that I believe they are wrong and that his statement is simply incorrect is a matter that he and I can debate some other time. I don't believe this bill is a hard thing; to the contrary I believe this bill is one of the best redistribution bills ever adopted by a Legislature and that includes the two that the Tory Party put through when they had the responsibility for governing this Province, the first in 1974 and the second in 1984.

Secondly, I acknowledge the points made by members who have spoken on behalf of individual constituencies and I respect what they said, the fact that the government are not able to accept the various pleas that they put forward, doesn't weaken the sincerity of the pleas; it is unfortunate that the principles upon which we base the bill would not allow us to accommodate these pleas but, so be it, members have spoken and the electorate will judge.

The third point I want to make is that, this redistribution bill is the fairest and most principled redistribution bill ever put before the House of Assembly in this Province. For the first time we are getting as close as is practical to do, to what I believe is the supreme representational principle in a democracy and that is this: that one person one vote, and every person has a vote as nearly as possible equal to that of ever other person, so I commend the bill to the House and move that it be now read a third time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Electoral Boundaries Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 31).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could just stand easy; I don't know where His Honour is, but I understand he is about to attend upon us. Alright, at the door, even as we speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Admit His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

Your Honour: "It is my agreeable duty on behalf of Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, Her Faithful Commons in Newfoundland, to present to Your Honour a Bill for the appropriation of Supplementary Supply granted in the present session."

A bill, "An Act To Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1995, And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service".

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR; "In Her Majesty's name, I thank Her Loyal Subjects, I accept their benevolence, and I assent to this Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: May it please Your Honour, the General Assembly of the Province has at its present session passed certain bills, to which, in the name and on behalf of the General Assembly I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957." (Bill No. 14)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957." (Bill No. 13)

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

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

A bill, "An Act Respecting Provincial Offences." (Bill No. 47)

A bill, "An Act to Revise The Law Respecting Limitations." (Bill No. 38)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act And The Mineral Holdings Impost Act." (Bill No. 21)

A bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law." (Bill No. 48)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable Television Companies Act." (Bill No. 51)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act (No. 2)." (Bill No. 44)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Standards Of Conduct For Non-Elected Public Office Holders." (Bill No. 41)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Leaseholds In St. John's Act." (Bill No. 40)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Investigation Of Fatalities." (Bill No. 36)

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act." (Bill No. 45)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act." (Bill No. 26)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act." (Bill No. 4)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Animal Protection Act." (Bill No. 3)

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

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

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill No. 25)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act, The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, The Memorial University Pensions Act, Chapter 18 Of The Statutes Of Newfoundland, 1993 And The Pensions Contributions Reduction Act." (Bill No. 29)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act." (Bill No. 10)

A bill, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting Credit Unions." (Bill No. 28)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act And The Summary Proceedings Act." (Bill No. 27)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Revision And Consolidation Of Subordinate Legislation." (Bill No. 7)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Children's Law Act." (Bill No. 34)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act." (Bill No. 15)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act." (Bill No. 17)

A bill, "An Act To Provide For The Transfer Of The Trusteeship And Agency Business Of Central Guaranty Trust Company To TD Trust Company." (Bill No. 30)

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

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Social Workers Association Act." (Bill No. 2)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Hospital And Nursing Home Association Act." (Bill No. 9)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act, The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 And Other Acts." (Bill No. 35)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Act And The Electoral Boundaries Act." (Bill No. 31)

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: In Her Majesty's name, I assent to these bills.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the Honourable House of Assembly, I would like to thank you for your deliberations on behalf of the people of our Province. I would also like to take this opportunity to wish all members and their families a very Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous 1996.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: With Your Honour's permission, just before you go, I would like to reciprocate to Your Honour and Her Honour the kind wishes for a very Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year, but I should also take advantage of this opportunity to express to Your Honour my personal appreciation for Your Honour's constant availability throughout the year. As you know Your Honour and I meet usually once a week, every Thursday, and discuss matters that are of great concern in the Province so that Your Honour will be fully informed as to these public issues, and so that I can have the benefit of Your Honour's advice and counsel on those issues as well. I want on behalf of all members of the House of Assembly to express those good wishes to Your Honour, but in particular on behalf of the government and myself to express appreciation for Your Honour's many courtesies.

Thank you, very much.

THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Thank you, Premier. I, too, very much appreciate the opportunities we have had to get together and to be informed on what is happening.

Thank you.

[His Honour, the Lieutenant Governor, leaves the Chamber.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: I have only two chores left, both of which are very enjoyable. First, I would like to thank all the members of the House on both sides, on all three sides if we could have three sides in a two sided House, and in particular my colleague the gentleman for Grand Bank for the way in which, I think, we have all worked together. It is not a matter of helping me. All of us have worked together to enable the House to address and to deal with a very substantial workload. I haven't checked back through the records but certainly in my twenty-five years in the House I cannot recollect a session that has addressed, dealt with, and resolved more, or more substantial legislation than we have dealt with today. There have been sessions where more bills were passed, but when I heard the clerk reading out the list of the bills to which His Honour gave assent there is a significant amount of legislation there that will have a significant impact and we believe a beneficial one on the people of the Province. I think all members of the House have a right to feel pride and take pride in that.

Secondly, I would like to wish everybody a very Merry Christmas and that in particular includes not only you, Mr. Speaker, and my fellow members but the staff of the House. Without their help - the Clarks or Clerks as my friend the Minister of Education insists, that is C-l-u-r-k-s for the benefit of the people at Hansard - the Clarks and the table officers, the Law Council, the Legislative drafters who attend to us. We are very well served by the men and the women who work in this House. In particular, if I may, my friend in a non-parliamentary but a very real sense of thirty years standing, Mr. Oates who sits up in the gallery and turns us on or turns us off. He doesn't turn us off as often as other people would want to I realize and turns us on only in the parliamentary sense, I hasten to add but I understand Mr. Oates is about to retire after a long and distinguished career in the public service. I know members would join me in wishing him very well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Members would be interested to know, this is not the latest day we have ever adjourned before Christmas. We adjourned on December 21, 1983. There was no fall sitting in 1986 to 1988 for whatever reason but this is the second latest date we have ever adjourned. The latest date we ever adjourned was on December 23, 1992 and I remember that was just after; (a) the House sat all night and (b) half of downtown St. John's burned down. So I am glad that we avoided both events here.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I will move the adjournment motion. The motion is in the usual form at the call of the Chair but I should advise members that we anticipate - we shall ask members to come back probably not later then the end of January, possibly earlier. The Mining and Mineral Tax Act is in the hands of the Committee and the Committee will be reporting in due course when they have done their work but members should anticipate that the House will be called together for a relatively short session, a fortnight or so, at the end of January or thereabouts. I will let members know as soon as we have some dates but I do want members to be aware of that so they can make their plans accordingly.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I will move that when the House adjourns it stand adjourned at the call of the Chair.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, as confident as I am with my new colleague here, the Leader of the Opposition, soon to be Premier Tobin, I am not yet -

MR. ROBERTS: That could happen.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes. But I am not yet the Government House Leader and he hasn't promised me anything, that's the other thing.

MR. TOBIN: But you will be well-looked after.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I know but, Mr. Speaker, I just want to join with the Government House Leader in extending best wishes for Christmas and the New Year to all members and to you, Mr. Speaker, and staff. To Mr. Oates, I would like to wish him a good retirement if he so chooses to retire. I just want to say this, and I said to the press when they asked me outside, what was my impression of this fall sitting, and I have to be honest, in that I think it is the most - not I think, it is the most productive fall sitting in the House that I have participated in; listening to the Government House Leader, it seems I didn't participate in too many fall sittings when I was in government but there were a few, but having said that, I am very serious, that we have accomplished a lot here this fall, very good legislation and substantial legislation and I think as an Opposition we have been effective in pointing out some flaws, there have been some amendments, good amendments, so it has been a good sitting really, and I think all members should be thanked and congratulated for that. There were times when it got a little bit out of hand but it seems that we always get like that every fall when we get close to Christmas for whatever reason when we should be getting in the other mood, we seem to get a little bit carried away.

MR. TOBIN: Roberts' fault.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But I want to wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Yes, things went so well when he was in Ottawa.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That's true, that's a good point. The Member for Burin - Placentia West wasn't there either, he was stuck on the Burin Peninsula, so maybe the Premier and I should think seriously about that I guess.

MR. SULLIVAN: If Chuck wasn't travelling so much, we would be out of here in October.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, the big worry with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Member for Burin - Peninsula West asked the Premier when he was gone if he thought he would be back for Christmas? Well, I am glad to see that he is.

Mr. Speaker, just one comment related to what the Government House Leader said and that is: my understanding is that the committee that is going to be dealing with the Mining Tax Act scheduled their meetings or hearings for February, so -

AN HON. MEMBER: First and second.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, so that then means you won't be back in January, is my point, I just mentioned that to you because, obviously you weren't aware of it but I just heard this morning from one of our members who is on the committee, that meetings are scheduled for the first week of February. I know the urgency for the government to deal with this bill because the Premier and I talked about it, and the Government House Leader, so I don't know if there is anything that could be done to - but I am just alerting the Premier and the Government House Leader to that. Anyway, have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, and I look forward to seeing you in '96.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too would like to take this opportunity briefly to wish all members of the House a Merry Christmas and as well to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the staff of the House including the Pages and Mr. Oates, who has been looking after our noise levels, to some extent.

I also agree with both the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader that it has been a very productive session. There is very important legislation here on this Order Paper. Not all of it I agree with, frankly, as was obvious from the debates, but those few bills aside there has been very important legislation passed, and very ameliorative legislation passed on a number of substantial issues. I think we have accomplished a fair deal over the last few months. I think we should be pleased with the progress that has been there, and the fact that some of these bills have received substantial amendments as well during this session.

I do want to extend my best wishes to all, and hopefully we can all leave here very shortly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GILBERT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Committee met yesterday and it was decided that it would be early in January before we could put the notice in. There was little purpose of putting a notice in on the next weekend because of the Christmas rush. Members felt that after giving the notice the earliest time would be the last week of January, or early in February. However, it is going to be discussed again on January 22 to see what sort of response we have.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friend for Grand Bank, I certainly was glad to yield to him, and I had every hope and expectation he would speak. My thought was we have an adjournment debate. Because I just mentioned to the Premier that the basic rule of the House, as we all know, is there is always a motion before the Chair. That is the basis of all our procedure. We have had no motion. But no harm. I appreciate the remarks.

PREMIER WELLS: No motion, no harm.

MR. ROBERTS: I would say the Premier is sounding like the Leader of the Opposition, no motion, no harm.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I guess the next Government House Leader won't say that, Mr. Speaker.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: With respect to the coming back together we will obviously have to play it as it comes and I wanted -

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) thank the former Minister of Justice (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I say, the next -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Once again the Premier has taken his cue. I just said, the next Government House Leader won't say these things, I assure (inaudible).

Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to do was to let members know so in making their plans for the next month or so they would be aware that we shall, I believe, have to ask the House to come together. We will let members know as soon as we are in a position to know for ourselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) - I say to my friend for Burin - Placentia West, and I thank him for feeding me the straight lines, that depends on how long he speaks.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Exactly. And if he is going to say something, we could be here longer than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I think before we get in any further let's move the adjournment.

Mr. Speaker, I move that when the House adjourns today it stands adjourned at the call of the Chair. The Speaker, or in his absence from the Province, the Deputy Speaker may give notice, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time and date stated by the notice of the proposed sitting.

I move that this House do now adjourn. Merry Christmas, and to all a good night.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before putting the motion to adjourn, the Chair would also like to join with the House Leaders and the Member for St. John's East in wishing all members of the House and their families a very Merry Christmas and a happy and healthy New Year, and to my good friend, Mr. Oates, I want to thank him for his service and wish him well in his retirement.

On motion, House adjourned until the call of the Chair.