December 2, 1994            HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS           Vol. XLII  No. 74


The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

I wish to make a ruling on a point of privilege raised by the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl on Wednesday, November 30. At that time, the hon. member raised a point of privilege relating to the former point of privilege raised by him on December 7 1993, which was the subject of a ruling in this hon. House on December 16 1993.

Essentially, he alleges that because the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board made a statement referring to a matter before the courts, it substantiates his claims that his privileges have been breached when the Public Accounts Committee did not proceed with hearings related to the same matter.

The member's original allegation was, and I quote: The Public Accounts Committee had deprived him of his right to freedom of speech by incorrectly applying the sub judice convention. That is a convention, of course, which, in parliamentary terms, disallows questions and hearings related to matters pending before the court in fairly stringent and strict circumstances.

I ruled at the time that, in my view, the sub judice convention did not apply to the committee's proposed hearings, and the fact that two civil law suits had been filed did not, under our rules, by law or convention preclude the Public Accounts Committee from proceeding with its hearings on the awarding of the contracts. However, the Speaker at the time did not have, and still does not have procedural control over the Public Accounts Committee, and therefore, no authority to direct it either to proceed or to postpone. Consequently, there was no prima facie case of breach of privilege made out at that time.

The fact that questions have subsequently been asked and answers given here in this House with respect to the same matter does not impinge upon or enlarge the hon. member's claim for privilege. Inasmuch as the sub judice convention did not preclude the Public Accounts Committee from hearing the matter, neither does that convention prevent the matter being raised in this House. Furthermore, nothing has happened in this hon. House to extend the Speaker's control and authority to direct the Public Accounts Committee. For these reasons, the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl has not established a prima facie case of breach of privilege.

At the same time, the hon. the Government House Leader raised a point of order that the Member for Mount Pearl had cast aspersions on the Member for Eagle River when he said, and I quote again: "...the Member for Eagle River, who was vice-chair at the time, has his reward now as parliamentary secretary to the Premier." While I am mindful of the need to preserve order, the remark, in my view, falls into the area of unpleasant rather than unparliamentary. I make this ruling in the full confidence that the hon. the Member for Eagle River has a sufficiently thick skin to endure this slight to his dignity, and a sharp enough wit to cause the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl similar discomfort on a future occasion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly to ask all members of this hon. House to join with, I am confident, all Canadians in expressing deep regret at the occurrence of the malady which has struck the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, Mr. Bouchard. I would ask all members also to endorse a message of encouragement and support, both to Mr. Bouchard and to his family.

While one may have substantial political differences with individuals, at times like this personal views and support, I believe, are warranted and I would ask this House to express it and to express the sincere wish that Mr. Bouchard fully recover as quickly as possible.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier spoke to me about this just before the House opened, and I, quite frankly, thought it would be an appropriate thing to do anyway. I was thinking about it last night myself, in seeing the news reports and so on.

I guess, as the Premier says, we certainly have our political differences with his party's position on politics, but all of that needs to be cast aside at this particular time. He is the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, and I think it would be very appropriate for this House or Your Honour to express best wishes, I guess, is the best way to put it, because we all hope that he pulls through and that he has many years ahead of him, so I think the message to his family would be appropriate.

I have some feeling for what he may be going through, even though what has happened to him with respect to an amputation of his leg, it was caused by something different from what happened to my own father, who lost both of his legs. I know what a difficult period of time that is for a family, but I do hope that he pulls through and recovers fully from this, and we would like to be associated with the Premier's suggestion.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe that my privileges as a Member of the House of Assembly were infringed upon yesterday by comments passed by the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

I quote from Hansard, December 1: "By way of example again, the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes today in presenting the petition did not - I understand he also took the point again rather than just deal with the merits of the case." Further down, he stated that: "...they are more interested in trying to get political brownie points in some instances than dealing with the issues." Further down again, he commented that: "He ridiculed and pooh-poohed the government's efforts of a year or so ago..." He said also, Mr. Speaker, concerning the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations: "...they get up and say, `Well, he shouldn't be running off to Ottawa. He shouldn't be going to Halifax, and so on, he should be doing something about it.' If he didn't go, Mr. Speaker, the very same people would be up saying, `Why isn't the minister in Ottawa trying to get some help with this? Why isn't he over in Halifax...?"

Mr. Speaker, I refer to Hansard of November 23, November 25 and December 1, when I presented three petitions on behalf of the District of St. Mary's - The Capes. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that on November 23, I stated: " I am sure the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations would like to announce a program, but I guess he has to consult with his Cabinet colleagues in order to do that. I know he would like to do something, so I stress to the other members of Cabinet here today, that this is important. It is not to be passed off as a joke. It is very important to the people of the Province, and very important to the people in my district who are seeking employment at this time."

On November 25, Mr. Speaker, I stated: "I am pleased to know that the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is in Ottawa now trying to work out some type of deal with the Federal Government on a cost-shared agreement...but, at the same time, I think the onus is on the Provincial Government to come forward with some dollars, too."

"I hope the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations returns from Ottawa with some good news..."

On December 1, Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as a matter of fact, when I was speaking on my petition, I said: "I am very pleased that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is in Halifax again today, doing his duty as a minister to find employment for the people of this Province..."

Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House of Assembly, I have a duty to present petitions on behalf of the people in my district. My experience over the past year-and-a-half here, has led me to believe that the only direct voice, and I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the only direct voice of the people of this Province is heard through petitions in the House of Assembly; after all, this is the people's House.

Some members opposite may find it hilarious, Mr. Speaker, when we stand here day after day, bringing forward petitions from the people in our districts who are seeking an emergency employment program. Mr. Speaker, the people in my district and, I am sure, in the other fifty-one districts of this Province, do not find it hilarious. They may find it sad, Mr. Speaker, that this government can spend $7 million on Hydro privatization while people here are hungry, Mr. Speaker; while the Premier can pay $600 a night for an hotel room in China, when he expects a family of five in my district to live on it for a month; while $1 million is spent on the ISP program (inaudible) children going to school in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member -

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think on a point of privilege the -

Order, please!

- just for both members, I would rather hear what the hon. member says and I was not quite sure because of noise from my left but I think the hon. member might have gone beyond making a point of privilege to making a political statement. I would like him to confine himself to his direct comments. I would just like to hear what he has to say, unfortunately I cannot.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I try to follow the rules of the House as much as I can, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation said yesterday that every time I got up to present a petition I was lambasting the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. I say not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on May 3, 1993, I was elected by the people of St. Mary's - The Capes with, I might add, an overwhelming majority, not on the coat-tails of someone else. I have the right to stand up in this House and present petitions on behalf of the people in my district, to air their concerns and if the need be, to present petitions day after day. I give notice today, Mr. Speaker, as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow there is nobody on the other side of this House going to stop me as long as I operate within the rules of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I have stood up here today on a point of privilege because I believe that my privileges as a member of the House of Assembly for the District of St. Mary's - The Capes have been undermined by the comments of the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation yesterday and I await anxiously your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

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

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Very briefly, the hon. gentleman's point of privilege is just as insubstantial as his political arguments and I invite Your Honour to deal with it in accordance with the rules of the House as I have no doubt you will. I mean the hon. gentleman is at best whining and at worst simply misleading himself because he is not misleading anybody else.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, to the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. This government, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation and particularly the Government House Leader, have been trying to stymie the regular process of petitions in this House since I came here. They put limits of two petitions a day and occasionally a third one. Now the people in our districts want to be heard in this House of Assembly and petitions are the only avenue they have for a direct say in this House.

The Government House Leader has risen on many occasions in this House when a second petition got presented without anyone supporting a petition and has cut off petitions on an ongoing basis. I think it is only proper, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the Province should have a right to be heard here in the House. The Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, who was presenting his petition, was just laughed and scorned at with political points being made by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. I think that is an affront to the people of the district as well as to the member, and his privileges were breached in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I will look at what the member had to say in Hansard because I could not hear it all, and I will make a ruling shortly.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I attempted to find out how much Cabinet, and that includes all the existing Cabinet ministers as well as those who used to be in Cabinet, how much they knew about the information contained in the appendix to Cabinet paper 9191 related to the Trans City issue.

Now, the Minister of Finance said that the paper did not go to Cabinet but that another paper did. He made reference to that yesterday in his answer, and he made it a point to emphasize that Cabinet and the Premier were fully aware of all the pluses and minuses about the Trans City deal that were itemized in this first paper.

The Premier, however, contradicted the minister. He says he never saw anything and he cannot remember being told anything, both November 30 in Hansard and yesterday, two quotes from Hansard by the Premier: I have no recollection specifically of anything that is in it. In yesterday's Hansard he said: I have never seen anything that is in that document before until yesterday. Whether or not any individual statement that was in it was brought to the attention of Cabinet at the time, I do not specifically recall, so the Premier says he has drawn a blank.

Now, I want to ask the Minister of Finance, is he certain that no pertinent information that he possessed was withheld from the Premier, or the Cabinet, before the decision was made to award the contracts to Trans City, or was the Cabinet decision based on incomplete information, as the Premier suggests now?

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

MR. BAKER: I thank the hon. gentleman for his question. I think this is probably the first time he has asked me a question directly so I would like to thank him for that.

Mr. Speaker, as I have explained a number of times in the House, several Cabinet discussions were held concerning this process. The process was discussed in Cabinet in its entirety. We considered over a period of time whether we would proceed with this process, but there were overwhelming reasons why we decided ultimately to go ahead with the process, and I am talking about originally the general call for tenders. These reasons had to do with providing the best structural and financial deal for the Province and to get work started in the Province and to get away from, in this instance, the very time consuming and costly process that Government previously had in place. Mr. Speaker, the issue was fully discussed in Cabinet and Cabinet was aware of the pluses and minuses of going ahead with this process.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure whether I should thank the minister for his answer because it didn't have much to do with my question. The question is: Did you withhold any information? Did the Cabinet have all of the information, or was there a decision based on incomplete information? That is the question. Could he answer that?

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

MR. BAKER: The decision, Mr. Speaker, was based on complete information. It was based on a complete discussion of all of the pluses and minuses of going with this particular proposal. If the hon. gentleman could come up with a specific piece of information I could give him an answer. In response to his question all I can say is that certainly all information, all aspects of the situation, were discussed in Cabinet.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, that is rather interesting. Because yesterday in this House the Premier told the House that he was not aware, for example, of the point made in the legal opinion and in your first Cabinet paper that the government would be acting outside of the sphere of the public tendering act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The Premier said that yesterday in this House, Mr. Speaker. Once again the minister is being caught. Let me move on, in any event. We will pursue that one.

At the time the minister also had in his possession, which he tabled yesterday, the legal opinion written by John Cummings, Assistant Deputy Minister in the Department of Justice. This legal opinion, this letter, was dated October 21, just days before the minister went to the Cabinet with the committee's new paper that he talked about yesterday, presumably. The opinion contains much of the same information that the minister had put in that first appendix. His original paper was based in large measure on Mr. Cummings' opinion. I want to ask the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, were the Premier and the Cabinet fully informed of Mr. Cummings' entire opinion?

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition is doing what he usually does and I think everybody understands that. I would quote from the particular legal opinion that he is referring to:

"In summary, Cabinet does have the authority to award these contracts to Trans City Holdings Limited under Section 8 of the Act, even thought it is not the lowest or preferred bidder. However, this will require the tabling of the reasons for the contract awarded in the House of Assembly." Mr Cummings in his legal opinion indicates that Cabinet has to consider whether this is an appropriate circumstance for Cabinet to exercise that particular authority that it has.

Cabinet considered that and decided that for a variety of reasons, as I outlined yesterday to the hon. gentleman, that it was appropriate to exercise that authority for the very good reasons that I explained yesterday. "Finally, the issue of potential liability... if an unsuccessful bidder may consider legal action" - Mr. Speaker, that is always the case in terms of Cabinet decisions. Cabinet was aware of that. These are the issues as summarized by the lawyer in this case, and Cabinet was fully aware of it.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister can understand why I don't ask him questions directly. He won't give a direct answer. I asked him were the Premier and the Cabinet fully informed of the entire opinion submitted by Mr. Cummings. That is the question.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I will go back to the answer I gave. The concerns were: Number one, could we do this under the public tender act? The decision was yes. Number two, the other concern was, should Cabinet exercise its authority? Cabinet decided to do that and decided at the same time to recommend that if we were to go this process again - and, Mr. Speaker, we should use this process again, in my opinion - if Cabinet were to go to this process again there are some changes that would be made to deal with some of the problems pointed out. Number three, Mr. Speaker, the issue of potential legal suits, certainly, Cabinet was totally aware of that. These are the issues, Mr. Speaker, in that legal opinion.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is pretty obvious that the minister is avoiding answering the question for some reason. We think we know what the reason is. The question is, did the Premier and the Cabinet know? Were they fully informed of every point contained in Mr. Cummings' opinion? Yes or no?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the other issues in the opinion deal with the process that was undergone, and certainly Cabinet was aware also, in addition to the three points that I mentioned which were in the conclusion of the legal opinion, the rest of it dealt with the summary of what happened up to that point. Certainly, Cabinet was totally aware of these issues as well. I do not know what else the hon. gentleman is getting at.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

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

MR. SIMMS: What I am getting at is, was the Premier and the Cabinet fully aware of everything contained in John Cummings' letter? That is what I am getting at. Have I understood him correctly to say, yes? Was that his answer, yes?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have answered the hon. gentleman's question many times, today, yesterday, and on other occasions.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister of Finance, I will try once more: Was the Premier fully aware of every item contained in this document?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know the Premier has always been a member of Cabinet and continues to be a member of Cabinet.

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

MR. SIMMS: I do not know what kind of games the minister, the government, and the Premier want to play on this one. You can laugh all you want but I can tell you that this is a very serious issue. Let me ask the Minister of Finance one final question. He referred to this Cabinet paper, this other Cabinet paper. Would he table the paper that he presented to Cabinet by the committee he headed, the subsequent one?

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will look it up, and as I always have done, and as I did with -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I will look up, get a copy, and table that in the House, of exactly what my opinion was at that time and the opinion of the committee, as I have done when the hon. member asked for other information relating to this issue. I have always said, yes, I will get it and table it. I have done so and I will, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the hon. gentleman that this is a serious issue, and the real issue here is how do we best provide for the best financial deal for the people of this Province in the construction projects that we do.

Mr. Speaker, that has to be seriously looked at because the ordinary process we started to use in 1989 was time consuming, resulted in interminable delays, and resulted in explosions in cost, and we have to avoid that. I think we did so in this instance and that is why we are prepared to have a look at that process.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the more the minister speaks the deeper he digs the hole, I say to him.

Now, let me continue asking the questions that I want to try to get some answers to. By the way he has not tabled all the information. I wanted to know what the purchase price was. I asked him that last week. What construction costs were, I asked him that last week. He has not tabled that kind of information.

Let me ask him this question. While he says his first paper, that is the appendix to 9191, may not have been discussed at Cabinet, I would like to ask him this, was it nevertheless distributed to all members of the Cabinet?

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

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

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

MR. SIMMS: As far as you know.

MR. BAKER: I did not distribute them.

MR. SIMMS: Well, you would not anyway. You would not distribute it. It would be distributed through the Executive Council I presume. So do you know if it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SIMMS: Can the minister explain then, how did a copy of this document end up in the hands and possession of the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, if that is the case, if it was not distributed to all members of Cabinet?

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

MR. BAKER: I cannot answer that directly, Mr. Speaker, because I do not know the process. I can suggest an explanation that -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Well I have tried to and I have not come up with an answer to that. I would suggest that because the Department of Works, Services and Transportation was so intimately involved in the process that simply a copy of this memo, that was developed for consideration of the committee, was automatically shipped up to Works, Services and Transportation, I suppose, it may have even been developed by one of the officials up there. I do not know and that is a mystery.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, there is a lot about this scandal that is a mystery, I say to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: But I would like to ask him more precisely, it is not good enough to stand in this House and say: I don't know, I can't find out, it is a mystery. The minister has a responsibility to be accountable. I ask him today, will he make and cause an investigation to be undertaken so that we can get the answer to that question because it is very pertinent to the line of questioning that I have had here this morning?

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

MR. BAKER: I have tried to find out, Mr. Speaker, and will continue to try to find out and as soon as I find out, I guarantee the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I will let him know.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. Will the minister cause an investigation to be made whether or not Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited benefitted from improper arrangements with any person or persons at Miles Canada Incorporated that enabled it to underbid its competitors in tenders for drugs and other pharmaceutical supplies to hospitals and nursing homes in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the question that the hon. member asked involves a legal situation, involves a police investigation that involves Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited. The answer is no, the government will not put in place an investigation of any kind that is a substitute for the police investigation that is underway. Now the reasons for that have been explained in full at least a dozen times in this House in the last ten days or week or so, however long this matter has been an issue, and clearly the government will not, unless and until that police investigation is finished and there is justification at that time to explore further, then the government will not hesitate to put in place whatever investigation is necessary to make a full determination of all outstanding issues.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The tenor of my questions have nothing to do with what the police are investigating that originated in Ontario.

I ask the minister, would he cause an investigation to be made into the inventory of drugs and pharmaceutical supplies used by hospitals and nursing homes in this Province to determine if there is a disproportionate number of drugs and pharmaceutical supplies manufactured or supplied by Miles Canada Incorporated?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, those are the things and amongst things that are being the subject of this police investigation. Now if that is warranted, if Miles Canada has somehow gotten an undue foothold in the drug business in this Province, I would like to know too. When the police investigation is completed, if it does not result in full and total disclosure of information sufficient to satisfy all reasonable outstanding questions, a full investigation will be held but we will not put in place any kind of an investigation dealing with Miles Pharmaceuticals or whatever they are, until this police investigation is finished. We do not want to jeopardize the quality of the police investigation or the ability to follow up afterwards.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The subject of my questioning has nothing to do with the intent and what is happening with the police investigation of Ontario and the Premier knows full well. I will ask him a question now that is entirely unrelated. Would the minister inquire to determine if hospitals order drugs and pharmaceutical supplies by specific brand names? And will he determine whether the practice of ordering by specific brand names favours brands distributed by Pharmaceutical Supplies of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have no quarrel with making enquiries to determine whether hospitals generally order drugs by brand names. I am quite prepared to have that question asked, and if there is any suspicion or any basis other than the mere fact that the member throws out the question for suggesting it, then I would certainly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, if you would make the facts available to me, I would be very pleased to cause whatever inquiry is justified on the basis of those facts to be made, but I will not direct an inquiry specifically at anything that Pharmaceutical Supplies alone does. I will direct a general inquiry that will apply to all drug supplies if the member produces, publicly or privately, one iota of evidence that would justify it other than the mere statement in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for the Premier, who said he always believed the Member for St. John's South, and now the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, lived in Tors Cove and went there every night. Didn't the Premier know that at the time the member was first elected to represent St. John's South as a member of the Wells team in May, 1989, the member, having been born and raised in St. John's, lived with his family at Perlin Street in St. John's. Didn't the Premier know that three months after the member was elected, in August, 1989, the member sold his Perlin Street St. John's house, as shown in this deed registered in the Registry of Deeds, and began drawing a $30,000 allowance from the taxpayers of the Province for commuting to Tors Cove?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have to tell the House, Mr. Speaker, that I really didn't enquire as to where any candidate lived at the time they became a candidate. I didn't think that was a particularly relevant issue. I honestly have never known whether the Member for St. John's South lived anywhere else. All I have ever known or associated him with is Tors Cove. When he moved there, when he didn't, or when he had an apartment somewhere else, I don't know. Whether it was before or after he was elected, I don't know.

For example, the Member for Mount Pearl now lives in Lewisporte, I believe. He was elected as the Member for Mount Pearl, living in Mount Pearl -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, and he now lives in Lewisporte. What does that have to do with anything?

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, most townees would say there is no bigger townee than the Member for St. John's South, but if the Premier persists in claiming to believe that the Member for St. John's South has his principal residence in Tors Cove and is entitled to the $30,000 plus he is drawing from the provincial Treasury for commuting, what is the Premier going to do about the fact that the minister has broken federal and provincial laws by having a St. John's address on his driver's licence, by being registered on the St. John's East federal voters list and, most damning of all, by voting in last year's federal election as a resident of St. John's East in the federal riding of St. John's East?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't accept the member's judgement. I have seldom had reason to accept the member's judgement, but if she believes that the Member for St. John's South has broken any law, she, as a former Attorney General, surely knows what she must do. She has a responsibility to go to the police and say: I do solemnly swear that I believe that the Member for St. John's South has breached such-and-such an act.

Please go and do it, and let whatever investigation takes place take place. Don't stand in this House and sit in judgement on everybody else and proclaim this judgement in this way, and that people should act in accordance with the member's judgement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, the Premier is the Premier and has a responsibility to remove from his Cabinet somebody as unworthy as the Member for St. John's South.

Now, the Member for St. John's South was registered on the federal voters list for St. John's East. The member is an active politician who campaigned for St. John's East Liberal candidate Bonnie Hickey in last year's federal election. Does the Premier seriously believe for one minute that the Member for St. John's South did not vote in St. John's East in last year's federal election, and what is he going to do about it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will take full responsibility for the quality, ethics and morality of every single member who is in my Cabinet. That is my responsibility and I will answer to the people of this Province for that. But I will not hack at people simply because the Member for Humber East wants to politically persecute everybody who doesn't share her political views.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. This past spring in this hon. House you as minister stated that you needed a couple of weeks to straighten out the situation created by the government with respect to fire fighting on the northeast Avalon. Can the minister inform this House of the status of the regional fire fighting committee six months later?

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

MR. REID: Within minutes, Mr. Speaker, I will rise in this House to give notice of an act or an amendment to an act that will hopefully take care of that problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will say to that it is about time, after two years' waiting, Mr. Speaker. The City of St. John's has incurred a current account deficit for fire fighting of $2.7 million because this government refused to listen to logic before it created the St. John's regional fire fighting committee. You as minister have admitted government's mistake by allowing the regional fire fighting board to dismantle itself. Therefore will government accept its responsibility and agree that a transition grant is warranted?

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, very briefly. There was a mistake made. I'm not going to say that we as a government made it or the mistake could be placed on the City of St. John's or any of those wonderful rural municipalities that surround the City of St. John's.

Let me say to the hon. member that I agree, I did say last year that it was one thing that I wanted to straighten out. The hon. member knows after talking to me, and the hon. Member for Mount Pearl and my critic, every one of them who have had any interest in the northeast Avalon, have spoken to me on numerous occasions. I've asked for advice from the hon. member. I've asked for advice from just about anyone who was involved with it to try to solve that particular problem. Hopefully after today and the next few minutes we may be able to direct ourselves and all our wonderful friends in Mount Pearl and in Portugal Cove towards some kind of a solution to this problem. Hopefully! I will never get up in the House and say I've got a deal until the `i's are dotted and the `t's are crossed.

With your help, Mr. Speaker, and with the hon. member's help, and with the hon. Member for Mount Pearl and all the others, I think if we all come together with the communities then we can get a deal on the northeast Avalon fire fighting service.

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it. The one who created the mess on the northeast Avalon with respect to fire fighting is that government on that side of the House.

The minister has been quoted as saying: If an agreement cannot be reached to end the dispute, government will legislate a solution. Which he just said he would. What is the minister's deadline? Since the minister knows these towns cannot bear the $2.7 million burden by themselves how will he punish them when he uses the Legislature to impose an unfair bill upon them?

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, even though the hon. member can get a bit nasty at times I'm not going to allow that to affect my judgement. Because he is an ex-mayor I will go back next week and ask the hon. member again to give me advice. Because I think with all that's said that he has to say, I suppose, about us as a government then, I am not that type of person. I enjoy and appreciate the hon. member's comments because he was an ex-mayor. I will say that in all sincerity to you.

I will not stand in this House today and legislate a settlement to the northeast Avalon fire fighting problem. I will not legislate it. By this motion that I am going to introduce later on I will set the wheels in motion whereby the communities on the northeast Avalon can finally come together and come up with a solution to this problem themselves with my help, and hopefully with your help.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Premier in his capacity as the Minister of Justice now on an issue that I believe he would have been briefed on by the Director of Civil Law in the department.

Let me first of all ask him a question: If an individual is taken before the court on an issue and is given an absolute discharge, what exactly does that mean? Does that person not have any record? Is the slate clean, or is there a mark that will be held against that individual further down the road? Can the Premier first answer that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: If the member accepts, for the moment, that what I am giving him is just a recollection off the top of my head and subject to my going back and confirming the detail, my recollection is that the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to absolute discharge enables a court to look at an individual's circumstance and say a person who has been charged with a criminal offence, while the technical requirements of the offence have been established - that is, the act was done and there was really an intent, if the intent is required to do the act and so on - the circumstances are such that it would really be inappropriate to find the person guilty of that offence, impose a punishment, and all of the other consequences that would flow, including the maintenance in his record forever of a criminal record for having been convicted. Courts have been given that leeway because circumstances exist and, generally speaking, I believe courts have performed very well under that.

Now, my recollection is that the record of the absolute discharge is there, but there is no record of conviction. There is no criminal record in the sense that the individual has been convicted of the crime, but the record of having been charged and the absolute discharge remains. Now, I don't know if there is any particular protocol or procedure in place for eliminating it, but I will check the detail. I believe there may be something at the federal level. I don't know what there is at the provincial level. I don't believe there is one in place at the provincial level, so technically the record of the charge having been laid and the absolute discharge given is still there. That record is there, but there is no record of criminal conviction because there has been an absolute discharge.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Very quickly - I know we are getting short on time - let me ask the Premier this. I have a particular situation with an individual who I will not name, for obvious reasons, a young man who committed a misdemeanour, basically. A bunch of young people went to George Street and as he came out he whopped on a car and landed in the arms of two plain clothes policemen, and he was charged with mischief, I think, public mischief and damage to the vehicle, even though there was no damage to the vehicle. He was taken to court and given an absolute discharge. In that young gentleman's view he was free and clean; it was over and done. The judge obviously said, this is not a serious offence; I won't put a mark on his record.

He has asked the police for a certificate of conduct, because this young man wants to join the police force. This is the type of young man that he is, and has always wanted to join the police force. On one Friday night he made a minor mistake.

The real point is, I say to the Premier, the police have said: I would give you a letter of conduct if you were applying for anything except a job with the police force. The question is: Is an absolute discharge an absolute discharge, or is it an absolute discharge provided you don't want to join the police force? Do the police have that kind of flexibility?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will get the details and provide the answer to the member either privately, because it involves a private individual, or publicly in this House, whichever the member prefers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Fine, okay, I will do it, but just let me refer to the member's question again to demonstrate the good sense of such a provision.

If I were the car owner I might be a little disturbed, but what young person has not, some time during their lifetime, done something at least as bad as that, and why should they be saddled with a criminal record forever because of it? So the good sense of the absolute discharge provision of the Criminal Cove is very clear. The statute is a federal statute. All of the provisions are federal, but the Province processes all the criminal procedures.

Let me check the detail and I will get back to the hon. member privately, and if he is not satisfied with the private position, raise it again publicly.

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

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the House of Assembly, twenty students and their instructors, Cathy Bailey, Patricia Buist and Dorothy Williams who are completing a telemarketing training program at the ERCO premises at Long Harbour, Placentia Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

Notices of Motion

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

MR. REID: Here it comes, Mr. Speaker, and members of St. John's East hang on to your chairs.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act."

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act." (Bill No.2).

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills entitled:

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

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

"An Act To Amend The Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services Limited Amendment Act."

Petitions

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me pleasure to rise here today on a petition signed by 1,270 people mostly from the District of Placentia and the petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, ask the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer: We the undersigned do hereby ask the Department of Works, Services and Transportation to undertake the upgrading and paving of approximately twenty-one kilometres of road on Route 91 from southeast Placentia to the intersection of North Harbour Road, Route 92 and to upgrade and pave approximately seven kilometres of road on Route 100 - 10 from the Argentia Access Road to the intersection of the southeast road, Route 91. We ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to address this matter as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray; 1,270 people mostly from the District of Placentia.

Now as we all know, Placentia, in recorded history, has had continuous settlement since 1662, but people were living there long before that. Now this area, the southeast road to Colinet area, North Harbour, prior to that being used, people were coming to Argentia, Placentia area by ship, then by train but other people, through the years, were going through the country. They walked or they went by horse.

The area we are talking about, the southeast road, part of it was used by D'Iberville, and is known as the French Trail because they kept inland on the side of the hills on their way to burn Ferryland and on their way to burn St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: Burn Ferryland?

MR. CAREEN: Oh yes. D'Iberville was in a job creation project, much better than what this Province is at, but anyway, it has very historical connections.

Today marks the anniversary of 1927 when, Mr. Henry Ford, unveiled a model T, an assembly act that allowed ordinary people to be able to purchase vehicles. Well that trail, the southeast road to St. Mary's, Colinet area, was upgraded in 1926, 1927, for some vehicles, but it wasn't really done and upgraded until the Americans came to Argentia in the 40s. They upgraded and made a road of it, they also put in the access up behind Dunville because of winter situations across the gut in Placentia. They maintained those roads, they upgraded them, did them and maintained them until in the early 50s. These roads now are used by people who come back and forth, and who use the hospital facilities in Placentia. The police use it on their patrols - and getting back to the hospital issue, we all know that a second, a minute, is oftentimes the difference between someone living and dying. It is very, very important for that road to be upgraded and paved. Also, with regard to tourism, it creates another shorter loop within the region of the Avalon. When we talk about tourism we don't always mean people coming from outside the Province, because there are many people from within the Province who travel on a Sunday afternoon, or whatever. They move, and if they see a shorter trail, a shorter route paved, that's the one they will take if they don't have the time to go the other route across the Avalon.

The Dunville access is very important to some people in our area as well because the Anglican graveyard is located in that area, and there are a number of people who find it very, very difficult at different times of the year, trying to get to the general protestant graveyard.

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

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

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)

MR. CAREEN: Well, their people have to get them there. They are not going to put them on a roller coaster to get them up there, I say to the minister. If you don't care about the living, Sir, have a bit of respect for the dead.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support the efforts, not of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, but indeed the efforts of the Member for Placentia, as he brings forward a concern that not only relates to his district, Mr. Speaker, but indeed, relates to people in my district of St. Mary's - The Capes.

I say that because this road that the hon. the Member for Placentia is talking about is a connecting road with a fair portion of my district, especially the communities of North Harbour, Colinet, Mount Carmel, and the St. Catherine's area, indeed the whole area. I am sure that the minister, understanding now that it is a concern for both myself and the Member for Placentia will see to it that this road receives some work.

Mr. Speaker, this is a major link for the people in the communities I just mentioned with regard to shopping, banking, police service, and indeed, the Placentia Hospital, that many people in the district use on a daily basis. Any day at all, you can drive over this road and meet people from my district on their way back and forth to Placentia, because it is one of the major centres in our area.

It is a road that has been used, as the member said, since 1920, a road almost seventy-five years old, and that has received very little in the amount of dollars with regard to upgrading, etc., from this Province. The Americans built the road back in 1942 and since then it has been mostly maintained by the government. It is a road that is in very good condition if we take into consideration that gravel roads can, in some parts of the Province, be in good condition.

It is a road that is used by hundreds of people and it is a major link for people in Placentia travelling to St. John's, and indeed for the people in my district who travel out to Placentia on a daily basis, as I touched on, but one of the most important aspects of this road, I would say, is in relation to the tourism development of the whole area.

Over the past number of years we have been trying in our area to develop the tourism industry to a point where people can find jobs, especially for people who have been put out of their jobs due to the crisis in our fishery. These people see this road as a link road, we should say, in relation to tourism development. The Cataracts Park is on this road. Many people, during the summertime, visit the cataracts, and I'm sure the numbers would increase significantly if this road were upgraded and paved. I'm sure the minister would like to do what he can for tourism in our area. Indeed, when our area benefits, the whole Province benefits. Having Argentia as one of the major entrances to our Province, from which people travel on to the city of St. John's and throughout, I think it would be to the benefit of all people to have this road upgraded and paved.

For a number of years before the road between North Harbour and Branch was used, many people down in the Cape Shore area used this road as a means of making their way to St. John's - especially with the bridge in Placentia; until the bridge was built in Placentia many people in our area used the road for a number of years going back and forth to St. John's. I believe it is long overdue that something should be done with this road.

I learned yesterday that the Executive Council of Newfoundland has given permission for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to award tenders for highway projects. He has a total of $62 million that he can expend, if I follow this properly, on highway roads, and indeed under the provincial roads program, under the strategic highway improvement, regional trunk road agreement and all this. I say, Mr. Speaker, that out of this $62 million -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. MANNING: I have a Minute of the meeting of the Committee of the Executive Council, Mr. Speaker.

MR. EFFORD: Where did you get that?

MR. MANNING: It fell from the sky, Mr. Speaker. I don't know where it came from. I have it. I'm just saying that the minister has $62 million to spend on roads in this Province over the next year into the fiscal year of 1996-1997. I say, out of that $62 million that the minister has at his disposal to spend on roads in this Province I think he should see fit to do something with the road between Colinet and Placentia - Southeast Placentia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MANNING: I hope the minister will, in his wisdom, find that this road will be of benefit, only to our area, but, indeed, a benefit to the whole Province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the hon. member to table that Minute of the meeting of the Executive Council that he was just reading from. I would like to have that tabled - you have to table it, you read from it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: He read from it, yes.

Mr. Speaker, with reference to the petition presented by my hon. colleague, the Member for Placentia, do I understand correctly that the two hon. gentlemen are asking me now to pre-commit funds for next year to pave the roads in their districts? If I understand that correctly, to the question: will we pre-commit any funds or give the members an answer to doing any work in the districts in 1995? the answer is absolutely not.

First of all, the budgetary decision won't come down on the provincial road system until next March or April. If I get any monies to put into the provincial roads capital works program next year - that will depend on the budgetary decision which will be coming up several months down the road - we have in excess of 9,000 kilometres of road in this Province. For the small amount of money that we get to do the provincial capital works program each and every year I have to have prioritized what is the most needed to be done. I will be doing that over the next several months, and prior to the Budget coming down, have everything in place. When the Budget does come down and I do get the money I will be able to proceed with the provincial capital works program next year, but certainly not at this time.

I want to make reference to the two hon. members who heaped so much abuse on the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation yesterday in this House of Assembly. I ask, are they now going to stand up and ask me to give them monies for next year to pave the roads? I question the two members, one day abusing and the next day asking for something. The pre-commitment of funds -

AN HON. MEMBER: What were you saying?

MR. EFFORD: Absolutely not. We will not pre-commit any funds at this time of year.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Member for Placentia presented, and I supported, a petition on behalf of the people in our district. I hope, in all sincerity, that the minister takes the concerns of the people seriously and that he is not throwing threats across the House. Throwing threats and trying to use intimidation will not work with the people on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I am not quite sure the member has a point of order. I will let the minister continue.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify one other point, hon. members also said that I didn't have any respect for the dead and I wanted to make sure that they understand what I said clearly, I do have respect for the dead and I have proven that because I have had a lot of respect for the Opposition for the last couple of years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am pleased to rise today to present a petition from some 198 constituents of mine in the Community of Mary's Harbour. The petition reads:

`WHEREAS the Mary's Harbour community bridge is an important transportation link between Mary's Harbour and Lodge Bay and;

WHEREAS the Mary's Harbour community bridge is travelled over by vehicles and pedestrians on a regular basis and;

WHEREAS approximately 150 students have to cross this bridge every day to attend school and;

WHEREAS the community bridge is in definite need of repairs or replacement;

WHEREFORE the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, John Efford, to understand our concerns and need to have a new bridge constructed or substantial repairs in the Community of Mary's Harbour.'

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support the prayer of this petition. I would like to point out, however, that it doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, but rather, under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, this bridge certainly is essential to the workings of the Community of Mary's Harbour. Apart from the students who travel over it, Mr. Speaker, all of the workers who work in the Mary's Harbour crab plant also use it. It is certainly, at this point in time, in a state of disrepair and there definitely needs to be some funding provided to see that it is kept in a condition that is safe and obviously able to accommodate all the transportation needs of the people in those two communities.

I would like to ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to take this under advisement and hopefully, in the coming budget, we will see some allocation for this type of emergency repair, if at all possible. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to tell hon. members that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs did get to see this particular bridge this past summer. I am sure he is well aware of where it is, but obviously, this petition does tell us again that there is a real need for repairs and I am sure he will give it every consideration.

So I present this petition, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. House and I would ask that government address it at their earliest possible convenience. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. In fact, I did see the bridge on my visit to the Southern Labrador Coast last summer and I will be honest and say that at the time I was a little concerned about the bridge. The council in the Mary's Harbour area is a very good council. It is the type of council that takes and addresses, I suppose, all the community concerns, and this has been a concern for them for some years. They did, last year, do some work on it themselves. I am not sure if I assisted them on some maintenance last year or not. I believe I probably did, but I don't want to leave that impression if I didn't.

Mr. Speaker, Mary's Harbour, I think, needs to put together an application either on our infrastructure program for next year, or under capital funding of some kind, and if they would get that request in to me I am certainly sure that we, as a government, will address those problems.

I have no doubt in my mind that the information the hon. member from that area is providing, that it is an old wooden type bridge with a metal structure in under, I believe, and it needs some repair and there is a problem with that particular bridge, so I can only say to the community of Mary's Harbour, as well as the member, that yes, I will certainly look at providing funding for that under capital works for next year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before we begin today's debate I wonder if I may have the consent of the House to drop from the Order Paper five orders at second reading with which we will not be proceeding. Now, I have spoken with my friend -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Bill 1 - we are not proceeding with them. I am not proposing to drop it, but we will not be proceeding. That has been dealt with, but these are less important than Bill 1, I say to my friend from Grand Falls.

Order 12, "An Act To Amend The Regional Service Boards Act" (Bill No. 6); Order 13, "An Act To Amend The Fisheries Loan Act" (Bill No. 3); Order 14, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act", (Bill No. 4) - that, in fact, was caught up in a subsequent Workers' Compensation Act with which the House dealt last spring; Order 16, "An Act To Amend The Social Workers Association Act" (Bill No. 26); and Order 24, "An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act" (Bill No. 43) - that act will be incorporated in the bill of which notice was given earlier today.

So I would ask Your Honour if I may have leave of the House to have those five bills withdrawn and matters dropped from the Order Paper. It will make the Order Paper that much shorter, I say.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded by the hon. Government House Leader that leave be given to drop Orders 12, 13, 14, 16 and 24 from the Order Paper.

Motion carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, yesterday my friend from St. George's, the Minister of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, five.

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

MR. SPEAKER: And twenty-four.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, then, I am sorry. My note is not complete. Would the House agree to withdraw number 26 as well?

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Order 26, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act (No. 2)" (Bill No. 48), be dropped from the Order Paper.

Motion carried.

MR. ROBERTS: I must say, we are really moving ahead here today, Mr. Speaker. We will clean the Order Paper one way or the other.

Your Honour, I was going to say that my friend, the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture will bring to a close the debate on the Aquaculture Act amendment. I would then ask if Your Honour would call Order 18, which is the Fish Inspection Act. I think we are either changing a comma or adding a word. It is of some importance, but it is not a major piece of work. We will then go on to Order 21, which is Bill No. 40. My friend from Carbonear, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, will deal with that. Then, when I find my friend, the Minister of Education, whose seat-belt seems to have been released for a bit, if we get done, we will deal with Orders 19 and 20, which are standing in his name.

Your Honour, first - the Clerk has tugged my gown - could we do the first readings of Motions 3 and 4?

Motion, the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Leaseholds In St. John's Act," carried. (Bill No. 52).

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

Motion, the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act," carried. (Bill No. 53)

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

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 15, I believe, Order 15, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make some further comments on this particular bill in light of the debate yesterday. Before doing so I should like to mention to this hon. House the importance of aquaculture in the future fisheries industry of this Province.

Some have already alluded to the fact that a province like New Brunswick has a very large aquaculture industry, an industry that will contribute this year to that provincial economy somewhere between $150 million and $175 million. Yet the potential for aquaculture in New Brunswick versus what is available in Newfoundland is not even a drop in the bucket, one might say. In the area of Bay d'Espoir alone in this Province we have an area where there is some ten to twelve times the opportunity for aquaculture, as far as physical space is concerned, compared to the total of New Brunswick. If one were to travel from Bay d'Espoir to Burgeo you would find around ten or twelve more sites comparable to Bay d'Espoir, all of which are potential sites for aquaculture development in the future. As we go down the road in developing this industry this particular act is going to be very important in that development.

My friend the hon. the Member for Ferryland raised an issue yesterday with regard to section 4. He had interpreted that change in the section as meaning that the minister would be able to issue an aquaculture licence without even a licence being applied for. In actual fact, the change in that particular section basically is associated with amending or varying an already existing licence. It gives the minister the authority to amend or vary an already existing licence without having to have the licence holder request that variation or amendment.

The reason for that - a good example is a need for a change sometimes in a particular licence with regard to shorelines. Recently a request was made that shorelines be well marked with red flags, especially during the wintertime when snow-mobilers are travelling along the shoreline. They would need to know where shorelines are located. The minister could then take the authority that he has to amend the licence in that particular situation without having the request come from the licence holder.

Another issue that was raised yesterday was the change in section 4 of the wording the minister "may" issue a licence versus the minister "shall" issue a licence. That is basically very much consistent as to what we do now in the processing sector with regard to processing plants. The department must have the control over the development of this industry in the future to make sure that it is line with good resource development and areas of suitability.

In section 6 of the bill there was some question raised yesterday as to why the minister would wish to appoint people as inspectors other than those who are associated with the department and the reason for that change is because of our historic relationship with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and their inspectors. Also with our move in this Province towards, what we call, swat teams where officials from other departments are given the opportunity and the authority to make arrests and to report activities that are not quite proper without having to contact a Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture inspector himself. This whole move is to improve of course, the efficiency, the totality of enforcement and surveillance issues in the aquaculture field.

There was another question raised as to - in Section 6.9 - why the minister may direct a person to take a measure referred to in other areas to stop a particular activity or to require a person if he was operating without a license to immediately apply for a license. Well the reason for the change where we are now substituting, instead of the minister, that he or she, is again to improve the efficiency of the administration of the act where the inspector himself would be able to make that decision without going through the minister.

The last point that I am going to make, Mr. Speaker, refers to why we have gone to a minimum fine of $5,000 in the case of a second or subsequent offense as far as that is concerned. The reason for this change is meant to be a significant deterrent with regard to second and subsequent offenses. The question was raised yesterday, `maybe it was put in there just as a means of a money maker for government?' That is not the case, it is basically put in there to be a very severe and significant deterrent to continued breaking of the law as far as the bill is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, on these few comments I move second reading of this bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 15)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Would you be good enough, please to call Order 18, which is Bill No. 33, which also stands in the name of my friend from St. George's.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act". (Bill No. 33)

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

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, this particular bill is to allow the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to enact regulations respecting the retention of fish in the Province.

The processing sector of the fishing industry falls of course, within the legislative jurisdiction of the Province. The Province, through the Fish Inspection Act has enacted legislation to control the handling, processing, storage, grading, transportation, and marketing of fish and all fish products within the Province.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)

DR. HULAN: I was just advised by my hon. friend for the District of Port de Grave to take my hands out of my pocket because -

At the present time the purpose of regulating the marketing of fish is of course under the control of the regulation and it states that it is in relation to the handling, processing, storage, grading, packaging, and marketing and inspection of fish, but as our inspectors often times have to make a detention of fish and not a complete takeover of the fish shipment as you would do in a seizure. When a seizure is made the department is held responsible and it has to take possession, it has to store the fish, and the department would then have to incur the storage costs, and often times this is not necessary. For instance, sometimes fish has to be detained because of a simple labelling issue and really there should be no reason to cause a seizure of the load of fish. The changes in the regulation is to provide inspectors with the possibility of detaining the fish without a complete seizure of the product. In Paragraph 4 (2) it is amended by striking out the words, inspection, and substituting a comma and the words, inspecting and detaining.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a few very brief comments because all the bill is doing is just adding in, detained, in addition to all the other specific responsibilities that it has under the specific act.

I guess it is just giving a little broader scope and little more powers to this specific bill. Normally, as the bill is printed there, the only change I see, and I am sure that is quite clear here, as it currently states the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, really the Cabinet, may make regulations regarding the handling, the processing, and storing, grading and packaging, and all those other things that may be done within the jurisdiction of the act, whether it is transporting, marketing, etc., or inspecting, and they are now adding in, to detain. I guess to give more extensive powers to be able to hold a specific product that does not meet the specifications of the department. It is really empowering the department to detain rather than just inspect. I guess they had limited scope before, and if they cannot detain it, then it may not be able to probably carry out its full mandate that they wish to carry out under this specific act. I would assume that is all it is stating here.

Mr. Speaker, those are all the comments I have. I think it is very brief, only a one word change.

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

DR. HULAN: I have just one very brief comment. The need for this change also relates to the fact that our whole system is moving to more extensive labelling. When getting into nutritional labelling sometimes a simple problem with the labelling would require the product to be held for, as my hon. friend for Ferryland has said, a more detailed inspection, therefore it would be needed to detain the product rather than seize the product, therefore makes the legislation more streamlined and does indeed give our inspectors the wherewithal to carry out their duties properly.

I, on this point then, Mr. Speaker, move second reading of this bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 33)

MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we go on now to do Bill 40, which is Order No. 21, amendments to the Corner Brook and the Mount Pearl City Acts, and then we will do Orders 19 and 20 and if we get on with that, we will give my friend from St. George's, a third strike today, by calling the Livestock Insurance Act which is Order No. 27.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The City of Corner Brook Act And The City Of Mount Pearl Act". (Bill No. 40)

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

MR. REID: Last year, Mr. Speaker, in the fall, we introduced an act to the House that had to do with the St. John's Act which basically allowed the City of St. John's under the City of St. John's Act, to set the residential properties and commercial business properties mil rate differently.

Prior to last year, the basic mil rate for properties, residential and commercial, were the same and to be quite honest, Mr. Speaker, I felt and the three mayors, of Mount Pearl, Corner Brook and St. John's felt that, that was tying their hands and there were times that they could offer special consideration to new businesses coming into the community and the opposite of that they could probably assess higher mil rates on property from businesses, and it was really just tying the hands of those three particular councils, so I am back today, Mr. Speaker, requesting the same thing for the City of Corner Brook and the City of Mount Pearl.

Now, I will say to you that the hon. Member for Waterford-Kenmount, last year, spoke to me on this particular question on a number of occasions as well as the Mayor of Mount Pearl, and at that particular point in time, we were trying, if my hon. friend remembers, to get it in the House last fall and we just couldn't do it, we ran out of time and couldn't do it so I am pleased this morning to be able to stand and say that this particular bill will take care of the anomalies in Mount Pearl and Corner Brook and it is basically to give those two communities the right to set the mil rate for both property and/or business and commercial properties in both those cities, and that is basically all I need to say on it, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise and support the piece of legislation that has been introduced, Bill 40, to of course, amend the City of Mount Pearl Act and the Corner Brook Act and as the minister has already said, permits a variance in the mil rates charged on property between the commercial and the residential properties.

As the minister knows of course, property and business taxes for the municipalities of Corner Brook and St. John's and all municipalities are based on the assessed value of residential and commercial properties, and the assessed value is of course, at or near the market value at the time when the assessment is done. The values that we have in the City of Mount Pearl - I am more familiar with the City of Mount Pearl and the minister knows that the assessment was done in 1985 and that these values held until 1993 when there was another re-assessment done.

In 1993, the City of Mount Pearl found herself in a difficult situation. They had a very out-dated assessment roll and in that particular year there was an agreement with the ministry whereby they would increase by 15 per cent all of the assessed values both residential and commercial. The effect of that of course, was to have an impact as the mil rate was not lowered, automatically there would have been a 15 per cent increase in taxes. The city council at the time decided they would lower the property tax rate from 9.85 mils down to 9 mils for both residential and commercial properties. The net effect in 1993 in Mount Pearl was to have a tax increase of about 5 per cent to 5.5 per cent on both residential properties and commercial properties.

In that same year the municipality as well was working with the Ministry to have a reassessment done. Of course that reassessment was completed in 1993 and it showed that there was a substantial change in the values of residential property as opposed to the values of commercial property. For example, the overall impact of the cod moratorium and the economic recession showed that commercial properties in Mount Pearl had decreased. The 1993 assessment showed that there was a 2.3 per cent change in the total commercial assessed values. On the other hand, there was a 12.9 per cent increase in the residential values.

What that meant was that if you applied the same property tax rate that one part of your tax base, the residential component, would have a disproportionate increase in their tax, as opposed to the commercial rates. It would have resulted in a substantial shift of the tax burden from the commercial base to the residential base. This varied mil rate permits the cities of Mount Pearl and Corner Brook to be able to go and charge different rates on property tax to residential properties and to commercial properties. It allows for fairness in the taxation approach. The City of Mount Pearl has, as the minister has said, approached the minister on several occasions relative to this. It will permit the 1995 budget to be more equitable, and it will permit the City of Mount Pearl to be able to share the tax burden in a more balanced way between residential and commercial tax payers.

Mr. Speaker, that is all I would have to say on that. It is a good piece of legislation welcomed by the cities of Mount Pearl and Corner Brook. We thank the minister for assuring both municipalities that it would get on the order paper in this session because it now can be implemented in the next taxation year. Thank you very much.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise very briefly just to address this piece of legislation. My friend for Waterford - Kenmount has outlined in some specifics the kind of implications that this particular amendment to the act can have for the various cities. I won't need to go into those types of details, but to simply emphasize the importance from a general point of view here.

We are talking about the three cities in the Province. Once again it underlines the importance of giving the cities, which have good professional staff, which have a very mature council and a very mature system of local government, greater responsibility and control over the affairs of the cities. They are the cities as compared to towns. There are really three stages in this Province. We have larger towns, we have smaller towns, and we have cities. We have some of the larger towns that are also very sophisticated. We have some larger towns that are an absolute total disaster and need to be totally controlled by the minister so that there are some checks and balances put in place.

The three cities by the very nature of their maturity as municipalities, by the very nature of the support staff that are available, the professional staff, the advisors, technical people who are available to them, should in fact be given greater freedom in handling the affairs of their community and their municipality. They should be I guess responsible less and less to the minister. Obviously the minister ultimately is responsible for all municipalities, but the three cities I think certainly have proven and earned a larger measure of freedom to handle their own affairs.

This is a step in the right direction, M. Speaker, so we have no problem at all in supporting this particular bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, if he speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. REID: Basically, just to clue up, Mr. Speaker. There is certainly no controversy in this particular piece of legislation and I thank my two hon. friends from across the way from Waterford - Kenmount and Mount Pearl for supporting the bill and that is it. Thank you very much. I now move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act And The City Of Mount Pearl Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 40)

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, the next two orders we will deal with are Orders 19 and 20, in that order and both stand in the name of my friend the Minister of Education and Training.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Association Act". (Bill No. 37)

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this is simply a little bit of housekeeping. The Newfoundland Teachers' Association have passed a motion that they want their association name changed from NTA to the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association. The way the act stands now, in order for this to be made law the act has to be amended in this House, Mr. Speaker. I did not realize that it was as important as it actually is. The teachers decided last year or even the year before last that they wanted this change made, however, they are not allowed to use it formally until it passes through this House. Now I would suggest that many members of this House have heard the NTA being referred to as the NLTA. They do it informally, unofficially but technically they cannot put it on their letterheads, they cannot put it on any contract they sign and this is simply just fulfilling the letter of the law and putting it through the House, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we, on this side of the House, agree with the minister that this piece of legislation is in accordance with the approved decision of the teachers of this Province. It is housekeeping. Teachers in Convention, I believe it was in the spring of '93, decided they would change their name from the Newfoundland Teachers' Association to the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association. It represents the collective will of the association and its membership, we commend it to the House and ask the House to approve it.

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

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Association Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 37)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The School Trustees' Association Act". (Bill No. 29)

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

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this bill is similar to the one which we just passed.

Apparently across the country, across Canada today, it is becoming more and more customary to refer to school boards as school boards rather than School Trustees' Association. So again, The School Trustees' Association have asked that the name of their association be changed to the School Board Association. Once again, it is a case where they have to come to the House in order to have that - what seems to be a very minor thing - done, they have to come to the House to get approval and that is the same thing.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the minister has already said, this again is a housekeeping measure and we, on this side of the House, support the proposal that is in accordance with the wishes of the Newfoundland and Labrador School Trustees' Association and it does bring their title in keeping with other institutions in the Province, and we on this side will certainly give our approval and consent.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for a stimulating discussion, for the outstanding recommendations, for all the time that he put into this. I really appreciate it. I could say, Mr. Speaker, that quite often I take encouragement and get good advice from the hon. member, who helps us as we make our changes in education, and I appreciate the contribution he made. Therefore, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The School Trustees' Association Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 29)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, the next one is the Livestock Insurance Act Amendment, and the minister seems to have slipped his seat-belt. If the Clerk would be kind enough to pass me a copy of Bill No. 49, I will take on the onerous task of moving it. We really must fasten seat-belts here. Your Honour, in the absence of my friend, when you have called the order I will deal with it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader is calling Bill No. 49.

MR. ROBERTS: Bill No. 49, which is Order No. 27, if Your Honour is ready.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Livestock Insurance Act". (Bill No. 49).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the explanatory notes really explain everything that needs to be said by way of explanation. This is a bill that simply helps us to administer the livestock owners compensation scheme. As members will appreciate, having read the bill and then set it in the context of the statute that is being amended, it is a very minor administrative type of amendment. Members should note that it is retroactive. It will be deemed to have come into effect at the beginning of the current fiscal year, on 31 March, 1994.

I see no particular concerns that I need raise with the House, but if members have questions my friend, the minister, I think has now returned and he will no doubt speak to close second reading debate when we get to that point.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The House Leader is quite right in explaining this bill. Basically it is very simple. It is to speed up the process so that it is not bogged down and, of course, the use of technology these days, of facsimiles, and now it can be done by phone.

I commend the minister for bringing in this part of the bill. All it does is basically speed up the process and help alleviate any problems when they are bogged down, when they have to report livestock that is either killed or injured by predators.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the minister has brought in such a thing. It will help anybody who is in a situation where they have to report livestock that have been killed or injured.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to make mention to the minister, now that he has come back into the House, with livestock owners and agriculture in the Province in general, that I know that this is part of his portfolio that he is most familiar with, and I expect to see some other good things come from the minister in the not too distant future which will help the agricultural industry in this Province to proceed and develop.

Sometimes the people in this particular industry feel like they are overshadowed by the different other sectors in the Province but, as the minister knows, there is great potential for agricultural development in this Province, and hopefully he will put all of his efforts into improving such things as he just brought in here in this bill today.

I think out of his whole portfolio, this section of his portfolio, food, fisheries and agriculture is, I would say, safe to say that this is the part of his portfolio that he is most familiar with, and hopefully we will see some improvements in that particular part of his portfolio so we will see major improvements to the agricultural industry, because I know that the minister is very interested in that part of his portfolio, and he should be with the other parts of food and fisheries, but I can safely say, I think, that it is the part of his portfolio that he is most familiar with, and with this.

Although a small matter, this particular bill is an improvement and I commend the minister for taking this action in this particular bill. What it does is speed up the process. The use of technology, even a facsimile can be used, I think, is part of the explanatory note. As well as a "...facsimile, telegram or letter, thus expediting the inspection and claim process."

It is an improvement but I look forward to more major improvements in the agriculture industry and more credence given to that part of his portfolio so that he will make some major improvements in that particular sector of the economy in the very near future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I agree with what the previous speakers had to say about this improvement to the lives of people who own livestock. They mention here about predators. We not only have the four-legged predators, we have the two-legged predators that cost farmers out there much money, grief and aggravation through the years. We've seen lots of t.v. time over periods of what roaming packs of dogs do to sheep. This bill will remove some of the red tape that these people have gone through in the past, and it is a good step.

Another incidence around this Province is that a number of fox farms - some people, rather than put their animals down when the economy got bad, prices got bad on animals, let them go. They are feeding, or their offspring are feeding, on other more innocent animals in this Province. This measure to tighten up and to make it easier for those people who have claims is a good idea. I commend the minister on making it easier on people.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture speaks now he will close the debate.

DR. HULAN: I'm not going to continue this debate any further. It sounds like my hon. colleagues on the opposite side of the House are very supportive of the amendments to this particular bill. On those few comments I will move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Livestock Insurance Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 49)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my friend the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has slipped his seat belt so I would ask if you would call Bill No. 47, which is Order No. 28. I will introduce the bill in his behalf.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act". (Bill No. 47)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of my friend the minister who is no doubt about important matters I will ask the House if it would be prepared to amend the tobacco tax act as requested in this bill.

While the bill is itself a fairly lengthy piece of work, in that there are for or five pages of text, it is really quite a simple principle that we are putting into the legislation here. The House will recall that last spring, if memory serves me, we amended the liquor control act to give us further weapons, further mechanisms, to help us to combat the smuggling of alcohol into the Province. Alcohol is not the only substance that is smuggled into the Province unlawfully. There is also tobacco smuggled in unlawfully. The purpose of this bill is to put into the tobacco tax act - the statute which regulates the importation and the taxation of tobacco imported into the Province - provisions similar to those which we've put in the liquor control act.

Members may well wish to have a little flick at this, because it gives rise to some interesting situations, of which I have no personal knowledge. I would invite every member when he or she speaks to assure the House, as I can, that I have never had untaxed tobacco.

I don't smoke!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: No, I say to my friend for Baie Verte - White Bay, that is not the only reason. I'm one of these naive people who believes that we really should try to live within the laws because if we don't the alternative is anarchy. I don't know if he has ever tried anarchy, but if he has he will acknowledge, as have all of those who have ever tried it, it is not preferable to the alternative.

You Honour, I won't go on except to say I commend the bill to the House, and to invite members when they speak to give us their solemn assurance that not only have they never let untaxed tobacco touch their lips, but that they will never ever again do it, and that if they come across untaxed tobacco they will forthwith get right on their horse and go straight to an inspector. They will note that as provided by section 1(2) of this act, which amends section 39 of the main act by adding after (2) the following, and (3): Inspector includes both members of the RNC and the RCMP. Anybody who comes across untaxed tobacco, all that he or she has to do is to go straight to the nearest RNC or RCMP and say: I am here because you are an inspector by virtue of the clause which I hope will be added as a result of this bill getting second reading shortly in this House.

With that said, Sir, I stand and await my hon. friends' onslaught.

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

MR. TOBIN: In the absence of my colleague the Minister of Finance - or the finance critic, future finance minister, former finance minister, I guess -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure but I think the minister said he knows where to get it?

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. TOBIN: Like I said, I'm not sure. The Government House Leader has said that he doesn't smoke and therefore he doesn't buy it. I can tell the hon. Government House Leader that I don't smoke either.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No. You were in university a bit before I was. I smoked. As a matter of fact I quit smoking in 1985, and it was -

MR. ROBERTS: I can remember the day I gave it up. It was 1964. Thirty years ago.

MR. TOBIN: How long?

MR. ROBERTS: Thirty years.

MR. TOBIN: Thirty years. Mr. Speaker, I was only thirteen, so I probably hadn't begun smoking when the hon. minister quit smoking. I wasn't old enough to start.

MR. SULLIVAN: I was thirteen when I gave it up, a lot younger and more sensible.

MR. ROBERTS: Loyola was an early starter. At thirteen he gave up smoking and took up other vices.

MR. TOBIN: Loyola didn't have time to smoke, he was too busy talking.

MR. SULLIVAN: Too busy working.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what it is here is the government again in this piece of legislation is trying to encourage people to smoke, basically, by bringing in this piece of legislation before the House. Making it difficult and, Mr. Speaker -

MR. ROBERTS: Are you going to be a few minutes? Can I go get a cup of tea?

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

MR. ROBERTS: Have I time to go get a cup of tea?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, you have time to go get a cup of tea. He is too late, look.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) keep it going.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, we will keep it going. On the tobacco tax act.

Mr. Speaker, how much money I wonder does this government get in revenues from tobacco tax.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell you here now, look. I suppose about $60 million, I would say.

MR. TOBIN: About $60 million?

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell you now.

MR. ROBERTS: He doesn't know what the bill is yet but he will find out.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker. I can tell the hon. minister, he can go for a cup of coffee. As a matter of fact, he can have lunch and enjoy his weekend, because we will be on this bill again on Monday.

MR. SULLIVAN: I was right, $62 million.

MR. TOBIN: Now, $62 million this government makes from the sale of tobacco.

AN HON. MEMBER: This bill is about tobacco.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, this bill is about tobacco. Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation didn't understand. Oh, he thought it was about liquor!

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: He doesn't smoke, that is the problem. He is a bit concerned, he thought it was about liquor and now he finds out it is about tobacco and as he does not smoke, he is not concerned any more; but this government is ripping off $62 million from the people in this Province who smoke cigarettes.

AN HON. MEMBER: And gladly we pay it.

MR. TOBIN: What's that? You would gladly pay it.

I don't know if he should. What this government should be doing, Mr. Speaker, is spending money educating people against the harmful effects of smoking. I would say that the vast majority of members sitting in this Legislature do not smoke; there are a few like the Member for St. John's South and the Member for Kilbride, a few of them who have not yet been fully educated or understand the risk of smoking cigarettes and tobacco.

My friend from Stephenville, I don't think he smokes but it is time that the people of this Province be given an opportunity to look at the risk involved in smoking tobacco. Why, this government is more concerned about ripping off $62 million in taxes from cigarette smoking, and make no mistake about it, that is having an effect on the health care budget in this Province, the fact that there are so many people who smoke.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology smokes or not, I really don't know but I can say one thing, that in my home, if anyone visits my home, they don't smoke in the house, and it doesn't matter, Mr. Speaker, if you are a Minister of the Crown or if you are my next door neighbour or who you are, out by the door if you are going to smoke.

AN HON. MEMBER: Out on the deck.

MR. TOBIN: Out on the deck.

Mr. Speaker, anyone is welcome to my home, anyone but not to smoke cigarettes. The Minister of Social Services agrees with me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you supply cigarettes (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I don't supply cigarettes. I don't like the looks of cigarettes, I say to the minister, I don't even like the look of them.

Mr. Speaker, this bill that the minister is bringing in, again, it is to try to clamp down, as he says, on the people who use smuggled cigarettes. Mr. Speaker, if this government would take a look at why they are clamping down on smuggled goods, and we are dealing here with tobacco coming in to this Province - why doesn't the government look at reducing the tax on tobacco and cigarettes in this Province, and create a situation where it is not worth the chance for people to go out and smuggle goods in from the French islands or wherever; where people would not be interested in purchasing smuggled goods because the risk would be too great? If government would reduce the taxes on tobacco and liquor in this Province, then they would automatically eliminate the smuggling of goods into this Province. There would be no problem, and I would say, Mr. Speaker, that what the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board should be looking at, and what his colleagues should be encouraging him to do, is to reduce the taxation that they have put on the people of this Province. They have created a situation in this Province where people obviously look for an alternative and that alternative, Mr. Speaker, is to buy cheap cigarettes.

Why are people buying cheap cigarettes?... because they want to smoke and they cannot afford anymore to go out and purchase them at a store because of the rate of taxation that has been levelled, so the sensible and the logical thing for this government to do, and I would suspect that in the long run if they reduced the taxation on tobacco and liquor, they would probably gain more money from taxation than they are today, because that is one way to curb and to prevent smuggled goods coming into this Province.

Mr. Speaker, everybody has to be concerned, particularly about the availability of tobacco and liquor to the young people in this Province. What has to happen is that this government has to approach it, rather than looking at tobacco and liquor as a way to make millions of dollars, rather than looking at it as a way - as we said, in tobacco tax, $62 million a year coming into the Province. What this government has to do, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SULLIVAN: It is going to be higher (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: It is going to higher, yes. What this government has to look at is bringing in a realistic taxation system whereby the people will purchase it. What is now being purchased from smugglers in this Province would not happen, Mr. Speaker.

I guess to some extent, and I certainly don't condone it, but what you are seeing in this Province today is people being forced to try to provide for their families. I would think that is another reason you are seeing people involved in the smuggling trade. People are doing it out of necessity. This government has done nothing to create economic stability in this Province. This government has done absolutely nothing to create jobs which create a climate whereby people can become employed. The social assistance caseload in this Province is almost unmanageable. There are not enough social workers in this Province today to manage the caseload of the Department of Social Services. I know that, the minister knows that.

People cannot survive on the money that they are getting - who have to live on social assistance. There is just no way that people in this Province can look forward to a bright Christmas who depend solely on social assistance. What government is doing is driving people to become involved in illegal activities. As I said from the beginning, it is not something I support or condone, but it is something that this government is creating day in and day out. This government is creating people being forced out to try to make a few dollars on the side.

You have the Minister of Employment and Labour Relation. He should hang his head in shame. Here he is minister of that department for a few months and it has been the longest time - here we are into December, the last month of 1994, and not a job creation program put in place for the people of this Province. When the former Minister of Forestry and Agriculture was there I can say there were jobs put in place. When the former Minister of Fisheries was in Cabinet they had jobs put in place. What has happened to this Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture that he has not put in place some economic stimulus for the people of this Province? That he has not gone after the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to do something.

I will say that if this side of the House does not continue to present petitions, if the people do not continue to speak loudly as they have been in the last little while, there will be nothing done. I will make a prediction and I hope I'm right. I believe that because of the efforts of the Members for Kilbride, Baie Verte - White Bay, St. Mary's - The Capes and others, because of the constant effort, the constant harassment that they have inflicted upon the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, that within the matter of a few days we will probably here something coming as it relates to an employment project. I think we have to keep it up on this side of the House. We've got to continue to hammer the minister, nail him into the ground, embarrass the Cabinet, and sooner or later something may happen.

Now I -

AN HON. MEMBER: What bill are you on?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm on the bill that deals with the tobacco tax act. What I'm saying is that this government is forcing people into illegal activities because they've no job creation strategy. People are starving in this Province. What I'm saying, I would say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, is that I'm encouraging my colleagues to continue to pound the minister.

I know that my colleague for Grand Bank has been in Ottawa the last couple of days having meetings, meeting with Mr. Tobin and others. Hopefully all of the efforts will finally pay dividends.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are trying to get credit for him now?

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not important who gets credit. All I am doing is encouraging my colleagues to continue to pound the minister to get something done. We have seen what happened when there was nothing said. When this Legislature wasn't open, Mr. Speaker, nothing happened. There was no job creation put in place. The minister had nothing done and there were no papers submitted to Cabinet. Cabinet approved nothing. We have seen that. Since this House opened, day in and day out, we have never seen a day when a petition was not brought before this House demanding that job creation be put in place.

We will keep it up. I can tell the minister today that we will keep it up. We will not let him rest until he finally takes some action, and the sooner he takes it the easier his life will become. As long as he does nothing we will hound him and pound him until he takes some action on getting some job creation programs put in place so Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can make an honest living.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want to earn a living honestly. They do not want to be involved in the smuggling trade. They do not want to be involved in that, and anyone who is doing it, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: No, I do not know anyone who is doing it. I do not know about the Minister of Finance. I do not know anyone, I say to the minister, but anyone who is going over to St. Pierre, if that is what you are referring to, I would think it is the economic situation of this Province that is causing an awful lot of it.

Anyway, I will not be distracted by the Minister of Social Services, not this time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: To be honest with you, I say to the minister, that I was over in St. Pierre twice in my life.

AN HON. MEMBER: The first trip lasted three months and the second one lasted four.

MR. TOBIN: It is a very serious situation, and the smuggling is very serious, too, I say to my colleagues. It is a very serious situation and something none of us can condone, nor should we, but we should not force people into doing it. People cannot exist on social assistance today.

The Minister of Finance is not in his seat today but he should be in his seat when we are speaking on this piece of legislation. The Minister of Finance is out working too hard trying to cover up the scandal that he is involved in in this Province, the scandal that this government, the Premier, and everyone in the Cabinet is involved in. You cannot refer to private members. Probably some of them were involved in it in the past.

The Minister of Finance is not in this Legislature today dealing with his bills and having them introduced because he is too busy involved in trying to cover up the mistakes. He is not here telling us about the meeting he had with Tom Hickman and them fellows on two or three occasions. He has gone out to check his files. The minister is gone out to check his files again to see if he can find another Cabinet paper.

MR. CRANE: That's terrible.

MR. TOBIN: It is terrible. I agree with the Member for Harbour Grace, that it is terrible for government to be involved in such a scandal. I support what he is saying, but it is not just the minister who should be out covering it up. It should not all fall on the Minister of Fiance. It should fall on all ministers today who were involved in Cabinet. Some of them are not in Cabinet now, but the minister has clearly stated that they are part of this scandal, and it is not fair that we are debating a piece of legislation wherein the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board refuses to sit in the House. Maybe he is gone out for a meeting with someone to see what is going on.

What we are seeing here today is the government out to try to make a fortune every way they can, the government out to take people's homes, take their houses, take their cars, take everything they have. That is what is in this piece of legislation, and I don't know how many members opposite are familiar with it, but that is what is in this piece of legislation.

What else is in this piece of legislation is that a government is more interested in making money, taxes, from the smokers of this Province than they are in educating people of the negative effects of smoking.

The Minister of Health is over there. He should be involved in this debate as well. The Minister of Health should be saying to the government: You are taking $62 million on taxes. I would ask the Minister of Health: I wonder what kind of a strain is that on our health care system when you have that many people out smoking today?

What he should be doing and what government should be doing is educating people against smoking, taking part of the money that they make on tobacco tax and putting it into a program to educate people against smoking, why they shouldn't smoke, and that goes for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs also, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, boy, that is what I am saying, that you are part of the government that is driving it -

AN HON. MEMBER: What would happen to the underground economy on the Burin Peninsula then?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I doubt for a minute if there is any underground economy on the Burin Peninsula, I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs - doubt very much - and I am sure that the Member for Harbour Breton would concur with what I am saying, that he doubts if there is an underground economy. The only thing happening on the Burin Peninsula is that people are being forced to do stuff because there are no jobs in this Province. This government has abandoned the job market, has abandoned the labour market.

What did they do the other day? Three hundred and fifty jobs the other day -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Three hundred and fifty jobs the other day this government wiped off the Burin Peninsula, just like that. That is what is going on with the economy. No wonder people are forced to try to survive. No wonder people are forced to try to make a living in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Mount Pearl is going to have more to say on this bill and today's time is running by, and there are two or three other speakers, so I will conclude my remarks and let the Member for Mount Pearl take over.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak to this bill for a few moments.

My friend from Burin - Placentia West, I think, has made some very excellent points on this particular piece of legislation. The bill itself doesn't contain a great deal that needs a lot of debate. It is the principle more than the content of the bill in this particular case that is of concern here.

As my friend has pointed out, what you are doing is causing a lot of people who are forced by the economy today to be involved in activities which are illegal, and we don't condone that - I am not supporting that - but I think we must be cognizant of the reasons why people are involved in that.

Now you are stiffening up the penalties because you have a problem. My friend from Burin - Placentia West put his finger on the crux of the problem. It is the level of taxation. If you didn't have the differential costs of tobacco and alcohol products to Newfoundland and St. Pierre and other parts of Canada and the United States, then you wouldn't have the need for as much enforcement as we are seeing here, so the response here -

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a road hazard.

MR. WINDSOR: I have all day, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde wants to be foolish and show his level of intelligence to the House of Assembly. I have all day; I can start again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Port de Grave.

MR. WINDSOR: Port de Grave, sorry. I apologize to the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde. The hon. the Member for Port de Grave is in a class of his own when it comes to level of intelligence, intelligent comment and contribution to this House, as we saw when he introduced a couple of pieces of legislation over the last couple of weeks, important pieces of legislation and he couldn't utter more than thirty seconds on that particular piece of legislation. All he has is silly comments, catcalls, heckling and this sort of thing. It contributes nothing to the House of Assembly. It is an insult, Mr. Speaker, to the House of Assembly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is to support what my friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West has said, that the real problem here is the level of taxation imposed on these products. They all have to be regulated, we appreciate that.

In the case of tobacco, we have recently introduced changed laws dealing with the age of smoking, of being able to purchase tobacco, and I don't disagree with that either, Mr. Speaker. I guess, many of us here, the reformed smokers such as myself, would say that nobody should be smoking, but that is a right that certain ministers, certain colleagues and certain individuals choose to have, and to partake in those activities. Well, that is their right. Even though it isn't good for their health, it is not for us to impose that on people.

Although, I must say if I went back, I remember when we had the great debate on seat-belt legislation there were a lot of people at the time who said, `You don't have the right, as a government, to impose on me what I have to do in my vehicle.' That was a compelling argument that people were making: `How can you tell me that I must put on a seat-belt in my own car?' The counter-argument to that, which I thought was very powerful was, `Well, fine, don't put on your seat-belt - waive a right to free medical treatment,' I mean, a very important point, waive your rights to these sorts of things. If you are going to go and beat yourself up in your car, then make sure you have insurance to protect others -

MR. ROBERTS: And don't expect us to pay the hospital bills.

MR. WINDSOR: - and don't expect us to pay the hospital bills. I say to my friend, the Government House Leader, that was the argument that convinced me, because I was a little hesitant, I wasn't totally in favour of seat-belts.

There were two things - I am off the topic here, Mr. Speaker, but it ties in - there were two things that convinced me to support seat-belt legislation ultimately, which I did. One was that argument that if you don't want to wear seat-belts, then don't expect us to pay for your damages, your medical bills. Don't expect us to support your family if you are killed, and all the rest of it. I guess, a third argument would be that you don't have a right to cause injury to somebody else. The other argument I saw was at a fair in the arena in Mount Pearl, I think it was the Kinsmen Fall Fair. There was a display set up by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation which was actually an impact machine where you could sit into a car seat, it slid down a slope and came to an abrupt stop at the end of that. You only slid five or six feet but your velocity at the end of that was 5 miles an hour - and all you want to do, Mr. Speaker, is sit in that seat and hit the end of that little slide at 5 miles an hour and find out the impact it had on the seat-belt you had on, the jolt you took, and it was only 5 miles an hour. Anybody who sat in it said, `You mean, at 5 miles an hour, this is what happens to me? Imagine what happens at 60 miles an hour or 70 miles an hour?' That was before the days of kilometres.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, then, if two cars came head-on, each of them going 50 miles an hour (inaudible) hit a brick wall (inaudible) 100 miles an hour -

MR. WINDSOR: No, it is exactly the same, you come to an abrupt stop.

MR. ROBERTS: The force is then (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: There is no difference to your car in hitting a brick wall at 50 miles an hour and hitting a car coming in the opposite direction at 50 miles an hour - you both come to an immediate stop.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. HEWLETT: Yes, but the force of your car (inaudible) on each car.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, but the force is on both cars, so it is divided in half again. You are getting into the theory of kinetics.

MR. ROBERTS: Maybe that is why I became a lawyer and not an engineer.

MR. WINDSOR: Exactly, yes, but the impact will be exactly the same. The point is that a car moving towards you at 50 miles an hour becomes an immovable object. If it were coming at 20 miles an hour you would move it backwards. That is where the transmission of forces comes into play.

MR. ROBERTS: Either way the results are bad.

MR. WINDSOR: The results are bad. I had an argument with a dental friend of mine, one time, who told me if you stand on a bathroom scale on one foot, you will weigh half as much as if you stand on two feet. I have never gone to him to have my teeth fixed since because I am afraid he might pull out two teeth instead of one.

But to get back to what I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that was the argument that convinced me on seat-belts. And, of course, the health argument is a strong health argument against tobacco. But the real problem here is not the breaking of the law. The real problem is the fact of what causes us to pass the law and what causes people to break the law, and the incentive to break the law, of course, is the rewards, the differential in the tax rates which impact on the differential in the market value in the marketplace, the amount of revenues that can be gained. So we have, in fact, caused the problem by the high tax rate, as my friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West said.

So the (inaudible) that you now try to correct the problem that we are causing, we are putting in place very severe penalties. There you have your two alternatives. One, is to, as my friend said, lower the tax rate so that the attraction is not as great, the benefits are not there, then the amount of smuggling and criminal activity will decrease, and the other is to put in larger penalties and I would submit that the larger penalties have not worked. We have seen evidence of that. I could tie this in as well, Mr. Speaker, into the .05 legislation that we debated in this House.

Once again, we are attacking those people who are responsible drinkers and drivers. We will all say that nobody should have any alcohol in them when they drive, but you know, society has already decided in this country, that a level of .08 is safe and the statistics that we tabled here in the House, showed very clearly that your real problem is not the driver who is consuming a small amount of alcohol and would show .05 to .08, it is the driver who is above .08 in fact, above .15, who is causing all the fatal accidents. So you are not imposing any additional penalty on those who are the problem here, you are imposing penalties on those who are the responsible consumers of alcohol, and also drivers, so you are attacking the wrong group of people.

You are making now, criminals out of people who are law-abiding citizens, and it is just like putting a lock on your door, all it keeps out are the honest people like you and me. The criminal who wants to come in, you can put all the locks on the door you want, he is going to come in; I have seen cases where they didn't bother with the lock, the lock was too much trouble to break, they took a chain-saw and cut a hole in the wall. Quite literally I have seen that happen, in summer cabins particularly. You know, we are not going to bother to break out windows or anything else, just take a chain-saw and cut a door in the wall and walk on through. I have actually seen that happen. So the honest person might not be going in, but the criminal is still going to go in. The same is true of the minister's .05 legislation. It is the responsible drinker you are attacking, not those who are causing the problem.

Once again, with this particular piece of legislation, in order to try to solve the problem created by the incredibly high tax burden - causing a differential in value in the marketplace, trying to resolve that by increasing penalties, very severe penalties, Mr. Speaker, in this case.

Now, let us point to clause 7, I think it is: "Where a person who applies for or holds a license issued under subsection (1) is convicted of an offence under the Tobacco Tax Act, the Minister of Justice shall refuse to issue or shall cancel or suspend that person's license".

This is dealing with the lotteries act. So you have a night club or an hotel that has a lounge operation, that has either in the lounge or in a separate room, an area for, under a lotteries licence - it is licensed under the lotteries regulations which is a significant portion of their revenue, and upstairs in the lobby, they have somebody selling cigarettes over the counter. So if a clerk in the front lobby sells a package of cigarettes to a minor, under this legislation now, the lottery licence and the liquor licence could both be cancelled. Because a minor is sold a package of cigarettes, your lottery licence and your liquor licence could be cancelled, your whole livelihood can be taken away, a very severe penalty for, you know, the relevantly minor offence of selling tobacco to a minor, not that I am in any way condoning selling tobacco to a minor.

The reality - and I had an example as late as yesterday given to me by a person who has a small confectionary story in my district. He said: "I see it every day. Kids have come in and asked to purchase tobacco products and, not able to provide the required identification, they were refused the tobacco products. I see them go outside and say to one of their older friends, `Go in and buy me a pack of smokes', and the older friend, nineteen years old, comes in, buys a package of cigarettes, walks outside the store and passes it over to them.'

The store owner is totally innocent. He hasn't committed any crime. He has acted quite properly. There is no way in the world you are going to stop it, so you are putting in place laws and regulations that are unenforceable - that's the problem, but at the same time, you are creating a class of - criminals may be too strong a word, but a person who is in breach of some law in the Province simply because we have put in place something that is restrictive to try to deal with another problem, and the other problem is the economic situation in the Province today, and therefore we get into all of these luxury taxes, as we call them, the sin taxes, alcohol and tobacco, at the top of any Budget Speech.

The first question on people's minds is, How much are cigarettes and tobacco going to go up this year? And right below that is gasoline. Those are the three, because you can point at those and say: You don't have to consume them. Gasoline is arguable; you can argue that. Gasoline impacts on a lot of businesses. Gasoline today, and operating a motor vehicle today, is not a luxury as it perhaps was thirty or forty years ago. It is an absolute necessity today in this society to have an automobile, to have some sort of transportation.

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the legislation is not so much the wording of the legislation, or what it is doing. It is the principle of it. Once again, we are trying to solve one problem by creating another larger problem, and in the process, you are making a criminal of somebody.

It almost ties into the case that I referred to in Question Period today. I had a question to the Premier dealing with a young man who committed a very minor misdemeanour, hardly a hardened criminal, and was given an absolute discharge. In spite of that, he is unable to get a certificate of good conduct from the police department so that he can get on with his career. He has been a year now, held up, unable to do anything. He has had two or three opportunities, one of which, as I referred, he wanted to join the police force. I have not met the young man personally; I have dealt with his family. I am told that he is an excellent candidate, highly recommended by teachers and those who know him, for that kind of a career, probably one of the best candidates you could ever find, but he can't get that letter of conduct because of a minor misdemeanour that was thrown out of court. The judge knew that it wasn't important enough to put anything on his record. This young man should not have a criminal record for something so minor. I suspect, as the Premier said, you look around this room and there is probably nobody here who can't look back in their early years at least and say, `I have done something at least that bad.'

It was a harmless prank that caused no damage to the vehicles, even though there was some question about that, but the police officers who were there verified that there was no damage done - they checked - no damage done to the vehicle, a very minor offence, a prank, a young man out celebrating a graduation night with a couple of his buddies or something, walked over the top of a car, hardly a hardened criminal, not a great threat to society, not somebody who you would say could never be trusted. He is not guilty of fraud, not guilty of anything of that nature, a harmless prank. You don't have to go too far from the university to see a dozen examples of that every Saturday night, I suspect, and our students who are present are smiling. I suspect they are probably just as guilty as this young man was, of some sort of an offence.

That is the point, because of some very minor thing, we are now criminalizing a person who is otherwise a very honest and decent human being, and I suspect that this legislation does not do that, but it is trying to solve a problem that does, indeed, do that, the problem that is caused by incredibly high taxation rates in this Province. Other governments in Canada have chosen to lower tax rates on tobacco to deal with this problem, to deal with the problem with the United States specifically, but it transfers. The more they lower their rates to deal with their problem with the United States, the more attractive it is for people to smuggle these goods into our Province, because we haven't followed suit.

As my friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West said so very, very, well, in order to try to protect this great source of revenue for the Province, a source of revenue which is not directed towards curing the root problem, which is the consumption of tobacco products themselves - it is not directed towards that unfortunately, certainly not enough of it. If it were you might have some sympathy that we are penalizing those who are involved and using that money to try to help them with that particular problem.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think there is much else I need to say about the act. We don't support it for that reason. I might say that I believe the power that is given to the police inspectors here to search and seize is quite drastic under the circumstances, and again, the solution that this government is taking to solve the root problem, which is the high taxation, is that now that we have imposed the high taxation, which causes this activity to increase because it is so much more attractive, that we will try to solve that by making the penalties stiffer and stiffer.

The end analysis of that is many families could be ruined, simply ruined, because a person finds it so attractive. Because of the economic situation that person finds himself in he is attracted to engage in these activities, not that we condone that by any stretch of the imagination, but by circumstances, by the economic circumstances of the family, he is attracted to engage in these activities, is apprehended, and has imposed on him such heavy sentences and fines that, in fact, the end analysis could be that the family could be in a much worse position at the end of that day.

Mr. Speaker, with those few comments, I will pass to one of my colleagues, who I am sure has a great deal to say.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to be able to speak on this amendment to the Tobacco Tax Act. The government House Leader, earlier this morning was talking to the Member for Burin - Placentia West on vices, when they smoked and when they gave it up. I was going to write a note to the Government House Leader but he had left for his tea, that Aubrey Mack had said it best at one time. The late Aubrey MacDonald said: `The good things, we learn at mother's knee, but the rest at other joints.'

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: He was good.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Was he? Well, that makes no difference. Whatever he was he was decent, and decency always shines through.

This puts stricter restrictions on people, over regulated, to get money. Bills we have seen in this particular session have always to do with (inaudible) because governments - it is not very popular to come out and say we are raising taxes, we have to find new ways to get money. We know and hear tell lots of times about tobacco, contraband that is caught in Newfoundland coming from St. Pierre. The cigarette products that are sent from Mainland Canada into St. Pierre far exceeds what an average person smokes.

MR. ROBERTS: It is even bigger than liquor.

MR. CAREEN: I know, they are far out of proportion. We all know that, but we say we can't interfere with private enterprise because they are exporting, I mean whether it is Seagrams, McDonald's or whoever they are -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Well that is the other argument. They can get it, they will get it and as the minister said, if they do not get it from one place they will get it from the other. Like we have seen in our history of Al Capone and his pictures taken in St. Pierre. It goes without saying that they cannot be interfered on one side because it is free enterprise and smuggling, while it is not condoned, is another measure onto the other side of a free enterprise system as well. While it is not condoned we see that the severe -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: No, no, no but it is an enterprise. Well it is probably freer if they do not pay taxes.

I am a smoker. I was the oldest of my father's crowd, I was called after my grandfather and smoking was accepted for any of those rural people who knew, it was an accepted way. My grandfather used to cut off a piece of his Beaver tobacco, grind it up in his hand and I was early rolling it in brown paper.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Yes, now it does but it was accepted then. The old women had their own pipes, they had smaller pipes then the gentlemen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure we used to see big ads in all of the magazines you know, `I'd walk a mile for a Camel.'

MR. CAREEN: That is right and the baseball players used to advertise it and all these Jackie (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: That is right but now I see young ones smoking, I see girls - we all know that they claim young women are more inclined to smoke now then young men, they have statistics on it. Education; I do not know if it seems to be working. No matter what good intentions are out there, they, teenagers will try.

MS. COWAN: And the advertising is really focusing on young women.

MR. CAREEN: Yes, it seems like they are coming into another realm of their revolution - whatever it is in society but it is a sad commentary on it that education, whatever we try does not seem to go. I do not know if it goes back to the '60s when we were all young people ourselves and we would say, `we should not trust people over thirty.' But what happens when you reach thirty? The children are - I do not know if our advertisements are getting to them, probably we should look at it a bit harder. Probably that should be the way we go to educate them further into what smoking is doing.

I gave it up a few years ago for seven months. I put on forty-two pounds in seven months. My wife used to tell me to get out of the fridge I was going to get frostbitten but after that seven months I lapsed back again. For years I could not tell the difference in eating one vegetable from another but there was an improvement. Anyway, I am back at it and I have a number of friends who share the doorstep out here with me. Oh yes, I would walk further than a mile for a Camel.

Another thing that we all should be aware of, it is easier to give up heroin after you go through the trashing out, getting it out of your system, then it is to get off nicotine. It is a harder drug to kick then heroin, nicotine. Now we were told earlier this year that there was talk about tobacco factories, tobacco makers interfering with the additives in tobacco. They say they might be raising up the nicotine levels. It was never proven to me that they did or they did not but if they are doing it - I like my smoke but I do not like someone interfering with me in that method. So there are other things that we have to find out without bringing more restrictive legislation on people to lose their houses. I do not know of anybody who has any aircraft but I know those who have motorboats, long-liners.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) smuggle (inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) smuggle (inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I never ever smuggled anything. What I remember of the Liberal Administration here that was in place for twenty-three years they had unrestricted access to Argentia. I don't know what they did here in Pleasantville, but I know fellows who used to go out and stay at the `Q' in Argentia, and not only did they smoke, they were primed on American booze, Canadian booze, that was untaxable.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Yes. I remember the names. No, I never smuggled. We saw when the federal government - other provinces reduced the sale of tobacco - we saw that RCMP officers who had been cut back in Labrador City all of a sudden, with this new act, new severe restrictions, they put back the Mounties for a short while to check the tobacco coming in from Quebec. I don't know if they did the same thing in Blanc Sablon on the border there of Southern Labrador, or was that an exception. Did they put extra RCMP over there, I ask the Member for Eagle River?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: They never, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: I went (inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: You went over. That is part of Quebec as well, just as much Quebec as Fremont and those other areas are.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, they smuggle cars.

MR. CAREEN: (Inaudible) smuggles cars.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I went up in a rented car.

MR. CAREEN: It isn't consistent. Over in Blanc Sablon, that is where the border area is between our Province and Quebec, as a result of a Privy Council agreement in 1927. They obliged Quebec. If they were doing it in Labrador City why didn't they do it in the other end of the Province that borders on the Province of Quebec? Probably because of the members they have. One administration or one political stripe versus another.

We also see over the past year, the year before - inmates of our penal system one time used to get this tobacco. They cut that out. They don't get their tobacco from seized goods any more. We saw in the last couple of days where a lawyer had been convicted and he is allowed out. He can go to work. Some said about overcrowding, but there are other people in there over relatively minor incidents who have to fulfil two-thirds of their sentences or so. They are still in there.

AN HON. MEMBER: No incentive not to commit.

MR. CAREEN: There is no incentive not to commit. These fellows have to be in there, and they have to buy their baccy. There is nothing consistent. Are there two classes of law, as we were always led to believe when we grew up?

AN HON. MEMBER: Baccy.

MR. CAREEN: Baccy, yes, baccy is a good term for us.

I find these bills very restrictive. I know that it costs the Province money. Some say if you lower the rates and take the tax, some people would smoke more by volume. Now I wouldn't want to smoke any more than I am smoking now. If I do, they will probably have to put a chimney in the side of my head. We see what prohibition did to the United States. It made outlaws out of ordinary rank and file people. People were desperate - the bank crash - and to go back to the seeds of what is happening in the United States, the troubles, they go back to that particular day in time when they brought in that act.

Probably the government should look at their bills, look at the education, re-education of people. Hammer it home hard if they have to. Tell them what it could do to them, and what it costs.

Another thing, they found out that when both parents smoke there is a greater chance that your offspring will smoke. Probably there should be something in that to be looked at, too, when we talk about it. Restrictive bills so that the government can come into more properties, and government can come into more money, is not right. It is just not right - another money grabbing bill.

Thank you.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have a few words dealing with Bill 47.

AN HON. MEMBER: I have a fax (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What does the fax say?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Is that right?

Mr. Speaker, I just have a few words dealing with Bill 47. While I, as a member, support the intent of enforcing the law, of providing any means to make sure that the law is enforced and that people live within the spirit and limits of the law, but it is very important to deal with the issue here. The issue deals with smuggling, search and seizure. The reality is that we really are not dealing with the problem because we are not getting at the root of the problem, and it deals specifically with why people smuggle. The incentive is there. In desperate economic times, people take it upon themselves, in some cases, to break the law - they, too, must survive and try to make a few dollars to deal with their own personal situations. I think, in an effort, we as a government, and we as people, must try to support and create, wherever possible, economic opportunities for people.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, the Canadian Government, followed by other Provincial Governments, dealt with the issue and lowered the tax on tobacco. What immediately happened? Many people who were making significant sums of money from the smuggling industry were put out of business immediately. The incentive was taken away, the incentive was removed from the smuggling industry to continue in that trade because there were no profits. There were no profits to be made, and no profits to be gained.

We find today in our society that advertising - as the Member for CBS, across the House, indicated, most of the cigarette advertisers are aiming their ads at young women, to show that it is in vogue, that it is part of the fashion scene today for young women to smoke, and increasingly numbers of young women are, in fact, smoking.

Mr. Speaker, I think that government must consider attacking the root problem of this very, very serious issue. While government takes in some $62 million to $63 million in tax revenues from the tobacco industry, government must also start taking some of that money to put back into education programs, to educate the public in terms of the hazards of smoking. I know personally, myself a smoker, and one of the people who frequents the back steps, as my hon. colleague, the Member for Placentia indicated, it is a difficult habit to kick. I have tried numerous times, and as my spouse tells me, `Don't quit quitting.'

Mr. Speaker, we have to look at making more programs available at a younger age to younger people, about the hazards of smoking, what it can cause, and what it will cause to people.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down.

Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few comments - point of order?

MR. ROBERTS: No, I can't hear you.

MR. SULLIVAN: I can shout louder, Mr. Speaker, if he is having problems hearing.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: There is none so deaf as those who will not hear.

The government managed to, I guess, gouge out of taxpayers last year, $65 million in tobacco tax; they budgeted $65 million last year, they budgeted another $62 million this year and I understand the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board said his taxation levels are up; I would assume it is up in tobacco tax. They have, I guess, a campaign on, or they did have a fairly intensive campaign to stop the housewife who is coming in from Fermont with two packs of cigarettes and $300 worth of groceries, to try to make criminals out of ordinary housewives and ordinary hard-working people and the Minister of Health, did a release indicating that the lack of smoking in this Province has improved considerably.

Now, I say to the minister, I would like to know where he obtained his figures. I would assume - and the Minister of Health is just arriving, maybe he can answer - he indicated that smoking has decreased among people in this Province, that we are lower than the rest of Canada; however, there is a concern with young people. Now, I would assume the minister obtained his figures from the sale of tobacco in this Province. I don't how else he might have obtained those figures, maybe from a study or survey, opinion poll based on smoking, I can't see what other means he can use. But with the taxation level in this Province, the highest in the country and an underground economy has been building in the sale of tobacco products, I say to the minister that the real figures are not known.

The legal sale of tobacco might be showing less smokers in this Province and better than in other parts of the country but, the real figures, I say to the minister, are not showing up.

I would really be interested, if the minister just could provide, even for my information for some leisurely reading, the background information as to how they arrived at that conclusion. Would it be from the legal sale of tobacco? Because, with the underground economy and the advertising - the person in Ontario who has challenged, has advertised publicly.

He checked the statutes in line with federal legislation, advertized for the sale of cigarettes, and as The Financial Post reported, I think, made several hundred thousand dollars by selling cigarettes and sending them by mail to other parts of the country.

Now, it is incumbent upon the individual who receives those, as an individual, to pay retail sales tax in the province in which that person resides or receives that. That is on an honour system. The individual would have to indicate that and report that. But the person who sells them in the Province of Ontario, whether they come to Newfoundland - there is a booming business going out in Western Canada from this one individual who advertized publicly. And he can't be prosecuted under the law because he is following the statutes of the law, but there are thousands of cartons of cigarettes going out every single day. I think $732,000 seems to ring a bell as to what his profits are going to be in one year, for this individual.

It is illegal for somebody - the police or any authority - to open the mail of those individuals. I can order from that individual in Ontario ten, twenty or a thousand cartons of cigarettes. He sends them - they can be sent legally through the mail system. Nobody has a right to open mail. They can come to me and I can use those cigarettes for my own use. But there is a law that states it is incumbent upon me to pay the sales tax on them to this Provincial Government. There is only the honour system.

How many individuals are going to do that if they are going outside the Province to buy them more cheaply? They might as well pay it here in this Province as go turn over all the sales tax to this Province based on that sale. So there is a large underground economy operating, a very significant one, when one individual can turn a profit of three-quarters of a million dollars. That is big business from one individual in mail orders - profit over and above all his costs of shipping and so on that are fairly substantial.

Now, in this Province we focused on hitting, once again, the little person, the person who may want to bring in two packs of cigarettes with $300 or $400 worth of purchases. That wasn't the intent and it shouldn't be the ones they are trying to prosecute. And I'm not promoting smoking, in fact, I'm strongly against smoking, and I played a very active role as a teacher against smoking within the school system. On a health care committee in the area we had a very active non-smoking campaign. In fact, I think we have been winning the battle against smoking in my area. I am still not convinced, I say to the minister, of the results that we are better than the rest of Canada. I am not convinced at all, because I am not sure if statistics are based upon sales. That is one point.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: They are based upon the professional (inaudible) survey.

MR. SULLIVAN: Survey poll?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, if they are on the survey poll, it could add some merit to it, but if it is on sales -

MR. L. MATTHEWS: No, not on sales.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is not on sales at all?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: No, it is based on the (inaudible) survey.

MR. SULLIVAN: Could I have a copy of that? I would appreciate getting a copy of the survey, because I am really interested in seeing the results, and the basis and the conclusions drawn from that study, if the minister could provide it.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I'll do that.

MR. SULLIVAN: I would certainly like to have a copy because I think it is so important to conquer this problem. It is costing tens of millions of dollars in our health care system today. We wouldn't have as many people waiting to get into our health care institutions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, not at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Adjourn debate.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I have a few other comments, and I will probably be the last speaker on this.

Since it is getting late, I will adjourn debate on this, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, we would just as soon... I will adjourn debate, at this hour, and conclude my comments on Monday.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Your Honour.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry. This vicious, violent attack launched at me across the House, I didn't follow it for a minute.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, it wasn't at me for once?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, good.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I thank my friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West for one of the many kindnesses he has done me.

Your Honour, we will carry on, on Monday, with the tobacco tax matter. My friend has adjourned the debate. We will then, if the House is ready, deal with the Kruger bill, if not, we will carry on with the Liquor Control Act, the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Amendment Act, and the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Act - I am just reading the bottom part of the Order Paper - so members should be ready to deal with that.

I will have a word with my friend, the Member for Ferryland or my friend, the Member for Grand Bank, if they prefer, as to whether we will deal with the - we are ready to deal with the Kruger bill, but if the Opposition would like another day or so -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Alright.

On Tuesday, let me remind members, we will call the Economic Diversification and Growth Enterprises bill. On Wednesday, the House will not sit, as a result of the Prime Minister's visit to the Province.

With that said, Sir, I move that the House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 2:00 p.m.