The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER(Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings I would like to welcome to the gallery today 125 Level I and Level II students from the Queen Elizabeth Regional High School in Foxtrap, representing the districts of Topsail and Conception Bay South. They are accompanied by their teachers Mr. Trevor Rowe and Mr. Jerry Oxford.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a very dear friend of mine who passed away on Saturday and was buried yesterday. The gentleman's name is Vincent Henry Fowler, who was a Captain in the Conception Bay South Fire Department. He started out back in 1976 as a volunteer in the fire department and several years ago, when the department chose to hire career firefighters, Vince was one of the first people hired.

It was a great privilege for me several years ago to present to Vince his twenty-five year attendance medal as a member of the Conception Bay South Volunteer Fire Department. He was a great friend, a great fireman, and a great friend to the men and women that he served within the department.

I would like to pay tribute today to Vince. My sympathies to his wife, Doris and his two daughters, Dodi and Donna, on the sad passing of their father. In my community Mr. Fowler, will be very sadly missed. So, at this time I want to pay a very special tribute to him.

Thank you.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to update Members of the House of Assembly on the situation with respect to the Innu children of Davis Inlet.

You will recall that Chief Simeon Tshakapesh called upon the federal and provincial governments to help children who are gas sniffing in the community.

Since that time, provincial officials from Health and Community Services, Aboriginal Affairs and Health Labrador - as well as federal officials - have met on two occasions. The first meeting took place at the request of the Innu leaders, last Friday and Saturday, December 1 and December 2. On Tuesday and Wednesday of this week the parties met again in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The focus of these discussions has been to work with the Innu community to decide how to assess, detoxify and treat the gas sniffing problems of the children in Davis Inlet.

The Province is committed to responding to the needs of the children and have requested from the Innu, the numbers and ages of the children in need of help and assistance. The Province has also requested an opportunity to visit Davis Inlet to meet with the community leaders, parents and the children. Meanwhile, community monitors have been hired at the request of the Innu and are currently in place in Davis Inlet.

The Province has also begun the process of re-commissioning the former Grace Hospital to receive the Innu children for their detoxification and medical and psycho-social assessments. The use of the former Grace Hospital is the requested option of the Innu leadership, rather than access facilities outside the Province.

It is recognized that other forms of support, treatment and counseling will be necessary in the longer term for adults and families if the children are to return to a safe and nurturing community.

The Innu leaders have indicated that, until the federal government commits to future programs, plans, and the necessary infrastructure, they do not wish the children to leave Davis Inlet to begin treatment.

We understand the federal government is willing to discuss and plan for the future, but wants to ensure that help to the children is not delayed while those discussions continue.

Mr. Speaker, the Province is prepared to receive these children now and to provide them with the help they need immediately.

We urge the Innu leadership and the parents of the children needing help to allow us to begin the medical assessment, detox process and treatment of these children immediately. We urge the federal government and the Innu leadership to work together to resolve their differences as quickly as humanly possible. We should not wait any longer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Whatever the other issues may be, I think we now have to look at the health of these children as a number one priority. It has to be dealt with immediately. It is a difficult and sad situation. The whole Province and country is being moved by this. Something has to be done. There are other issues out there that may take longer to resolve but we cannot, at this time, neglect our number one priority, the children. Something has to be done immediately.

Unless the conditions change there, we are going to be back in a similar situation again and we are going to be dealing with this problem over and over. There are larger issues that have to be addressed and have to be done in time, but we have to take the action necessary now to ensure that something is done immediately and that these children get the help they need. We cannot afford to procrastinate on that particular number one priority.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We all share the great sense of concern and tragedy about the lives of the Innu in Northern Labrador. However, I find it strange to see the minister try and blame the local leadership for the current circumstances. We have to recognize that this is not a problem that arose yesterday. Where was the minister a week ago, a month ago, six months ago, when this was an ongoing problem? We must have the cooperation and support, and work with the Innu leadership and the parents to find a solution that is acceptable here and not impose one upon them.

MR. GRIMES: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to intercede, but I think that if anybody interprets any comment made by me, on behalf of the government, as trying to blame anybody... I put out a plea for adults who are community leaders, government leaders, federally and provincially, to put the interest of the children first. I fail to see where there was any suggestion of any aspect of trying to lay blame in the statement that I made. I really regret that the hon. member felt that it said so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On August 26, 2000, Little Catalina resident Norman Reid was fatally shot by an RCMP officer. The police were responding to a complaint that Mr. Reid had uttered threats to injure a young person.

After conducting a preliminary investigation, the RCMP requested that the Ontario Provincial Police conduct an independent criminal investigation. The OPP have now provided the results of their investigation to the RCMP, Mr. Tom Mills, the Province's Director of Public Prosecutions and Dr. Simon Avis, the Province's Chief Medical Examiner.

The OPP criminal investigation report concludes that there are no grounds to lay criminal charges in relation to the shooting. The Director of Public Prosecutions has also reviewed the report and informs me that he concurs with the OPP conclusion.

I have met with Dr. Avis, and he has advised me that it is in the public interest to hold an inquiry.

Having received the police reports, and based upon the opinions of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief Medical Examiner, I will now be calling on the Province's Chief Provincial Court Judge, the Hon. Donald Luther, to appoint a judge and commence with an inquiry.

We have informed the Reid family of our intentions to hold a judicial inquiry and we look forward to the findings to bring this matter to resolution.

Mr. Speaker, another matter I wish to bring before the House pertains to an explosion which occurred at North Atlantic Refining Limited in Come By Chance on March 25, 1998. This incident resulted in the deaths of two workers, James Mercer and Jerome Kieley.

On November 16, 1998, the Chief Medical Examiner indicated there should be a judicial inquiry, and the Department of Justice agreed; however, charges were laid against North Atlantic Refining Limited and such an inquiry could not take place until all charges had been disposed of in the courts. Convictions were entered under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and sentence was imposed on yesterday, December 6, 2000.

I am now informing the House that a judicial inquiry into the deaths at Come By Chance will commence after the relevant appeal process has expired in early January, 2001.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to thank the minister for forwarding us a copy of his statement before the House today.

I just want to say to the minister that I am glad to see there is going to be a judicial inquiry into the death of Mr. Reid. I had only hoped, Minister, that added to that list would have also been Mr. Darryl Power, of Corner Brook. I can only say, Sir, in regard to Mr. Reid, that I hope consideration will be given to the mental condition of this particular man when he came to his end. Like I say, I had only hoped that Mr. Darryl Power would have been added to that list as well.

I am very pleased as well, Minister, to say that we are finally going to have an inquiry into the deaths at the Come By Chance Refinery. I think every member of this House is very much aware that I have been asking for an inquiry and I have been asking for information on behalf of Mrs. Joan Kieley, going back, I guess, to November of 1998. I can only say that it is time - and I speak today on behalf of Mrs. Joan Kieley -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FRENCH: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FRENCH: I can only say that it is time that Mrs. Kieley will now be given the opportunity - and I hope she will be given status at this inquiry - and finally, some time in the year 2000 or 2001, Mrs. Kieley will actually see reports and will be able to find out exactly what happened to her husband on that very tragic night when his life was taken.

I can only say, on behalf of Mrs. Mercer, that she will also have, I hope, the same opportunity and both of these ladies and their families will now have an opportunity to find out exactly what did happen at Come By Chance.

The fact that North Atlantic Refining was fined $200,000, I wish to say to this House that it will not bring Jerome Kieley back to this world. As I said earlier, I can only trust that now Mrs. Kieley will be able to put some closure to the death of her husband at that particular time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi-Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am also pleased to hear that the inquiries will commence in respect to both of these deaths. There is no reason to criticize the decision with respect to criminal charges in both of these matters but we have to see that the public interest is looked into, and not only the public interest but the also the interest of the families.

It is a very sensitive circumstance in the Reid situation. Mr. Mercer and Mr. Kieley met a death in an industrial action which has yet to see all the consequences and concerns raised to satisfy the families and also to satisfy other workers at the oil refinery, that proper measures will have been taken to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the House is aware, government has, since March of this year, launched several major initiatives in response to what we heard during our public consultations on jobs and growth. The most recent initiatives included two new venture capital tax credit investment programs that the hon. Minister of Finance and I announced. Today I am very pleased to announce yet another initiative that will further advance the overall jobs and growth agenda.

One of the things that became clearly evident during the public consultations was the critical role that confidence and positive attitude can play in moving the economy forward. Presenters emphasized the role of attitude as a tool for economic development in its own right. They told us that it is just as important as other tools such as access to business financing. Without a positive attitude, without a firm belief in ourselves and our own ability to succeed, we limit our chances to move forward. Presenters to the Jobs and Growth Committee drove that point home very forcefully.

In that context, Mr. Speaker, presenters emphasized that government needs to be more active in promoting the multitude of economic opportunities available to use, and in showcasing the successes that have emerged in recent years, especially in rural areas. It was stressed that we should do more to build on such efforts as the, ‘We're doing it. Right here' and ‘Manufactured Right Here' campaigns.

The Department of Development and Rural Renewal is responding to that challenge. I am pleased to announce today that we are organizing a major event for the spring of 2001 to promote, celebrate and nourish the creativity, energy, opportunity and successes that exist throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador. This event will be known as Rural Forum 2001 and will take place in Gander. It will bring together the best of rural Newfoundland and Labrador business, culture and community, and will be an event for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to experience. Until now, there has been no single Province-wide showcase event to celebrate the achievements and promote the economic potential of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. This will change with Rural Forum 2001.

Mr. Speaker, this event will have four main components: First, a Conference Program will include a series of presentations, seminars and workshops led by experienced individuals who will focus on approaches and practices for community and business development that work best in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Second, a Rural Business Exhibition will showcase successful rural businesses and entrepreneurs from around the Province and spanning all sectors of the economy. It will also profile the role various community economic development organizations can play in promoting economic opportunity and successful business enterprises.

Third, a Youth Forum will engage the leaders of tomorrow in a round table discussion and debate with today's business, community and provincial leaders on a youth perspective for economic and community development.

Fourth, the first annual Community Economic Development Awards banquet will recognize and celebrate the accomplishments of individuals and organizations who have excelled as leaders in community economic development in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, while these are the four cornerstone events for Rural Forum 2001, we are also considering others, including a Taste of Newfoundland and Labrador Internet Café. The Café would feature the products and capabilities of our growing agrifoods industry, as well as the technological abilities of the Province's rapidly expanding information technology industry.

The Department of Development and Rural Renewal will be engaging community, youth, business and other stakeholders over the next several months in the organizational planning for Rural Forum 2001 and will provide more details on this exciting event early in the new year.

Mr. Speaker, this initiative is yet one more tangible expression of government's commitment to action on the jobs and growth agenda that continues to evolve from the consultation process we embarked on last year.

I extend an open invitation to all members of this House to participate in the Rural Forum next spring, and I anticipate its success will generate interest in making it an annual event.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not going to try to call the minister by name because I am not sure which department he represents when he stands. There are so many people standing and representing other people that we have given up trying to find out what department they represent.

I say to minister that we, here on this side, share your views in talking about some of the success stories that are out there, and celebrating the successes and the achievements of people, especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I say to the minister, I am from rural Newfoundland and I would like to hear this minister stand up and tell this House of his government's plan to stop the bleeding of rural Newfoundland. I would like to hear this minister get up and talk about how he is going to stop and curtail the situation where 40,000 people have left rural Newfoundland in the last five years. I would like to have the minister stand in his place and talk about how he is going to replace the 16,000 jobs that have been eliminated from the fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Those are the kinds of things that we are waiting for over here, not the feeble attempt to show that you are trying to do something in rural Newfoundland, and take 278 jobs from an urban area, put them in another urban area, and say this is the salvation for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister that I would suggest to you that the Bonavista Peninsula today probably has as high as 60 per cent unemployment. I suggest to the minister that there is a community in my district, where 160 people live, where four people get up in the morning and go to work. Those are the kinds of answers that I would like to see coming from that side of the House, how we are going to stop this from happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador is going through a very difficult time. Yes, we should talk about the successes; yes, we should celebrate the achievements, but something tangible has to be done in order to stop the bleeding, in order to keep young people in their communities and allow those communities to continue to survive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We commend the minister on the positive initiative that he has taken in this lead. I think it is important that we do have confidence in ourselves and in our ability to be producers. I know that we have a lot of examples around the Province that we can point to, that will give us good examples of that.

In addition, I think the successes that are around - and I think we all take great pride when we are traveling or touring around the Province and we see items that are marked: Made Right Here, because the ‘We're doing it. Right here' campaign and the ‘Manufactured Right Here' campaign have been success stories in their own right.

I think it is also important, as this provides for it, to involved the youth of our Province in these ventures because they are, after all, the job creators of tomorrow. I think what needs to be done and what has to be done is a follow-up to measure the success of all of these initiatives because, after all, as the previous member stated, we need action in the Province and not just a series of meetings.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform hon. members that I will be tabling legislation to amend the parental leave provision of the Labour Standards Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: This amendment will give parents the option of staying home for up to a year to care for their newborns and adopted children.

As hon. members are aware, earlier this year the federal government amended the Employment Insurance Act to provide a maximum of fifty weeks combined maternity and parental benefits, after a two week waiting period, rather than the current twenty-five week maximum.

This change is effective December 31, 2000, and I am tabling the legislation to ensure that the people of our Province are able to access federal benefits at this time. In fact, Newfoundland and Labrador is one of the first provinces in Canada to formally announce that amendments will be made to legislation to be consistent with federal provisions.

Currently, under the Labour Standards Act, parents are entitled to twelve weeks of parental leave. Amending the act will increase the parental leave to thirty-five weeks. This change, combined with the current seventeen week leave provisions provided for maternity and adoption, will enable parents to take up to one year off with sound knowledge that they will not lose their job.

Mr. Speaker, government is fully committed to ensuring adequate labour standards which address the needs of workers and employers. We also recognize the need for parents to have the opportunity to provide much needed care and nurturing during the crucial first year of life. Amending the parental leave provision of our Labour Standards Act will allow parents to take responsibility for their child or children, without the worry of losing employment, and I trust hon. members will work with me to ensure that the amendment is passed.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for forwarding me a copy of his statement before the House opened. I would just like to remind the minister that we already have a bill on the docket here. It is on the Order Paper and is going to be debated here today. I am wondering why we have a statement saying that they are tabling legislation today. We already had the legislation here that we are going to be discussing.

At the same time, it is an initiative that we fully support on this side of the House. It was great to see the federal government come forward with legislation in regard to changes to the EI act, and now to see that the provincial government is following suit.

Our parents, I guess, are our first teachers. It is important that parents of newborn children have the opportunity to stay with their children in that crucial first year and that they get the opportunity to spend as much time as possible to nurture and to foster the development of their children in the first year of life. We certainly support the legislation that will be coming forward and that we will be debating here today.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, support the change in the legislation that will accommodate this. I think it a long ways from the time when women, mainly, had to resign from their positions to care for their children and probably return to the same employer later that year, only to start off new on the seniority list again.

I say to the minister that while this amendment is good, there has also been a study conducted on the labour standards review that has been leaked to the media. I call upon the minister to table that report in the House so that all parties can see it.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. LANGDON: That report has been made public to all stakeholders, to Hospitality Newfoundland, the Employers Council, the Federation of Labour. They all have it; therefore, if the Opposition or the NDP want a copy, it is just a matter of contacting the office and you can have it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I will say ho, ho, ho!

Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite all hon. members to our annual Christmas Lights Across Canada Ceremony being held tonight in front of the East Block.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: This is the fourteenth year the Province will be participating in this national tree lighting ceremony. The Christmas Lights Across Canada Ceremony is coordinated by the National Capital Commission in Ottawa and is celebrated by provincial and territorial capitals.

Tonight as Newfoundland and Labrador marks the beginning of the Christmas session, so will Parliament Hill and other provinces and territories in similar celebrations to the one we have planned for tonight.

Premier Tulk will be joining me in the festivities tonight -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: - when we light up approximately 45,000 lights on Confederation Hill and along the Prince Philip Parkway. Joining us in lighting up their facilities for Christmas is the College of the North Atlantic, Memorial University, the Health Sciences Centre and Signal Hill.

My department has also placed lights on public buildings in Clarenville, Gander, Grand Falls-Windsor, Corner Brook, Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Wabush.

The ceremony at Confederation Hill tonight begins at 6:15 p.m. with entertainment by the St. Pius X Elementary School Choir. The Salvation Army St. John's Citadel Band will also perform. Refreshments will be served after we have turned on the lights.

Mr. Speaker, I hope to see members back here at the building tonight to help us celebrate Christmas both here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and across Canada.

Signed, Santa

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HUNTER: I would like to thank the minister for forwarding a copy of his statement. I would like to congratulate the Province for participating in the Christmas Lights Across Canada Ceremony here and in the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor especially. I would like to also thank the school choir and the Salvation Army for participating.

May I take this opportunity, on behalf of my colleagues, to wish everyone a very safe and enjoyable Christmas and to reflect on the past year, and to spend a really good Christmas with friends and family.

Having said that, I also must reflect on the calls I have been getting this past week from constituents of mine. I am sure every member in this House is getting calls too. Not everybody is going to have an enjoyable Christmas this year. There are a lot of desperate situations in this Province, in every district.

The calls that I am getting are from people strapped for money for Christmas, who cannot pay their light and phone bills, seniors having leaking roofs, and they are very desperate. They cannot put food on the table for Christmas.

I think all of us here today should make a special effort in the coming weeks to extend our hand to help others to have an enjoyable Christmas like we are going to have. I sincerely hope we do everything possible to make this Christmas a good Christmas for a lot of people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

Lest there be any doubt, I want to assure hon. members that we, in this party, are in favor of Christmas. We think it is a good idea -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - or any other seasonal cerebrations that people of other faiths wish to celebrate. We support the government's initiative in putting some light on the cerebrations and providing a sense of joy and festivities to the occasion. We, too, would like to echo the sentiments of the Member for Windsor-Springdale in recognizing that not everybody will have the ability to share in the same joys -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. HARRIS: We have to recognize, Mr. Speaker, that not all members of the public have the same ability to share in the benefits and joys of Christmas.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to take his seat.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

So, Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, we are finally going to see the bright lights of the government tonight. Finally, I say to the House, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier. Yesterday, members of the Board of Trade heard, in my opinion, a very powerful message from Mr. Vic Young on past and present negotiations with Hydro Quebec to develop the energy potential on the Lower Churchill river system. No one in this Province, in my view, has better credentials to speak out on this issue. He is a former CEO of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, a former top-ranking civil servant within the government, an adviser to past governments, I know the government led by Mr. Wells, and a current - and this is very important - and present member of the CF(L)Co Board of Directors.

Mr. Young warned yesterday that Quebec continues to use its geographic position to force this Province to negotiate on its terms, and its terms alone. Nothing has changed, Mr. Young says, since Quebec took this Province to the cleaners in 1969. Quebec's attitude, he went on to say, remains the same. It is our way or the doorway, Mr. Speaker.

We had expressed, on this side of the House, the Opposition, over the course of the last three years since the framework agreement was announced, these concerns to the government, the former Premier, present Minister of Mines and Energy, the former Minister of Mines and Energy, nothing but scoff and to be laughed at from that side. I want to ask this question today -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, it is true. We have been mocked by that side and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - the rooster is coming home to roost, I say, to the government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his point.

MR. E. BYRNE: The question is this: Does anybody, in lieu of the comments made yesterday, on that side of the House have the stomach or the intestinal fortitude to stand up today and table the agreements, to let us know what actually happened, to let us know what truthfully happened during these negotiations? Does anybody have that sort of backbone?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thought they wanted an answer to the question, maybe they do not.

It probably deserves, again, a little bit of history. To get to the short answer of the question, first of all, at the board meeting tomorrow of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and CF(L)Co, on which Mr. Young is a director of both, he will have an opportunity, as a respected businessman in Newfoundland and Labrador, to make the decision as to whether or not these agreements have any commercial implications that should shield them from the public. He is a businessman. He understands that concept and idea, as to whether or not there is anything that would jeopardize the boards of the two corporations on which he very proudly sits, and they will make that decision tomorrow. If they see no difficulty, in terms of a business case, they are encouraged by the Premier of this Province to feel free to release any and all documents.

Let us not forget again about history. As the Premier said a couple of days ago, in 1969 there was not a single dissenting voice in this Province with respect to the deal that was made; not one. There were members on this side of the House, there were members on that side of the House, and when there is a disagreement it shows up in the record of this House with a divided vote, where those who are in favour say yes, and those who are against, say no. There was no division. Every single member of the House, Liberal and Conservative, agreed in 1969 that it was the best deal available in Newfoundland and Labrador, in Canada at that time.

Now, with respect to Mr. Young and his credentials, I happen to have a great deal of respect for Mr. Young. I am the person, as the Minister of Mines and Energy, who reappointed him to the board of Hydro, and reappointed him to CF(L)Co because of his business sense and the abilities he has demonstrated. With respect to a senior civil servant -

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. GRIMES: He was, Mr. Speaker. Understand this, Mr. Young was a senior civil servant who advised Progressive Conservative administrations through seventeen years and he advised them -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: He advised them on two matters that deserve to be recalled and remembered. One was that we should participate in a scam at the Straits of Belle Isle, where we will blow up a couple of tunnels -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: I do not know if was red roses or Five Roses or what kind of flour it was -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - or Robin Hood Flour. He advised the government that we should blow up something, make out we were going to build a tunnel, make out we were going to bring power from Labrador to Newfoundland. He was a senior advisor to the government who did that! Also, he was a senior advisor -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

He was a senior advisor who advised the Progressive Conservative Government to challenge the contract of Churchill Falls in court.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear now, that the lead dog has been summoned on this file. That is what is clear when the Minister of Health is standing in his place today, that on every sensitive political issue in the last four years, when the government is in trouble, send out Roger the dodger. That has been their approach. What we have seen today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that when he is referring to members of this House he ought to refer to them by their constituency or their portfolio.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is also very clear that when this government is in trouble - when people of respect within the Province try to speak out on an issue a personal attack is launched.

I would like to ask, whoever would like to answer. The Premier has indicated that he keeps trying to shuffle - in his view, we have written the Hydro board to release it - that responsibility, that is his responsibility to the board. Your letter to the Hydro Board of Directors is nothing more, in my view, than a self-serving media spin. You asked the board to make documents public unless - and here is the rub -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.

MR. E. BYRNE: - unless the contents are commercially sensitive. I would like to ask the Premier this question: Isn't it a fact that the main agreement, the 1999 power contract was released to the public? Isn't that a fact? So, in view of that, how could these side agreements be commercially sensitive when the main agreement is not? Or is it, Premier, that your words, commercially sensitive, are really a code phrase for politically sensitive on behalf of your government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I regret again that the Leader of the Opposition would suggest that anything I say - which is in the public record - about Mr. Young, who I do have a great respect for, would be a personal attack on Mr. Young. Mr. Young would gladly acknowledge that he was a senior civil servant who had an opportunity to advise the government about putting flour up in the Straits of Belle Isle and blowing it up to pretend that there was going to be an in-feed to the Island.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to remind the Minister of Health that this House does not belong to you, for you to hijack it. I have asked a question. Are you going to answer it, Mr. Straight Talk and Real Solutions?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Minister of Health now to get to his answer.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just for the record, it is straight answers and real solutions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Young was, and should be, very proud of his record as a senior civil servant and he has been a very successful businessman. He is one of several very successful businessmen who will make a decision tomorrow as to whether or not a corporation -that all of them run on our behalf, and are very proud to run on our behalf. We want them to make sure that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and CF(L)Co - which runs the actual dam itself and the actual power plant - does it properly and appropriately, and in the best business way possible so it can generate cash for Newfoundland and Labrador.

We had that debate a few years ago about privatization, that we did not want to do that because we wanted that particular entity, that public enterprise, that public utility, to make sure that it stayed in our hands, ran successfully and generated cash for generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians into the future.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Tomorrow that board, with no restrictions, nothing to fetter them whatsoever, will make a business decision as to whether there is anything sensitive which would impair their ability and impede their ability, to run that corporation in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I thought the Opposition would be glad, as we are, to let respected business people from Newfoundland and Labrador do that rather than dirty-fingered politicians like us, because that is the way they would like to describe us.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to take his seat.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, that is the way they would like to describe us. We would like to hand it over to them and let them do it with no instruction from us and nothing to fetter them in making their decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

For the record, if the Minister of Health wants to describe himself as being dirty-fingered, fair enough, but don't point it over here because I would not describe myself, or any member of my caucus, as being that way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the Premier. You and your ministers have continued to say that this deal, or the deals that you sign, are in the best interest and are good for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; but you continue to hide those agreements. The CF(L)Co Board of Directors, we appoint them. The CEO of Hydro works for you, and thus through you, through the people of the Province. How can you possibly expect Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to believe what you say, but yet, do not have the intestinal fortitude to reveal, when one of the most knowledgeable, most respected figures in the Province, who sits on the CF(L)Co Board today, declares categorically that Quebec will use its geographic location and position to put the blocks to this Province? How can you sit there and not release and reveal those agreements?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While he may say that - and I have had a conversation with Mr. Young, and he does feel very strongly that the Government of Canada has actually been the problem from the beginning with respect to the Hydro deal; not with anything that happened in Newfoundland and Labrador. His whole message is that the Government of Canada - because they have not dealt differently with Quebec - has found us in a position where we were hamstrung by virtue of the geographic. We don't disagree with that, Mr. Speaker. Nobody in Newfoundland and Labrador disagrees with that. Mr. Young is stating the obvious, that Quebec, because of where they are physically located, happen to sit between us, where the power is generated, and somewhere else where it is actually sold. There is nothing great or brilliant about that.

Now if Mr. Young convinces the rest of the board tomorrow on the matter that is in this question, that there is absolutely nothing commercially sensitive in these documents and these agreements, we will gladly - and we have already signaled through the Premier - defer to that particular point of view and decision, and have the documents available to Newfoundland and Labrador because Mr. Young, and the rest of the board all examined the documents and felt they could sign them readily and in full agreement - because they were agreements that put Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and put CF(L)Co into a better business, financial position today than they were before the agreements were signed. On that basis, if they don't see a problem with releasing it because they would lose competitive advantage in the marketplace - they will make that decision tomorrow and we will gladly accept Mr. Young's judgement, along with that of the rest of the board.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Over the last four years we have seen a trend by this government - and in particular, this minister - hide behind decisions of hospital boards, yet they decide where funding goes. Now we are seeing this minister and his government, aided and abetted by his Premier, hiding behind the board of directors that they appointed. They can issue and release those agreements if they had the political will to do so.

He has raised an interesting point, though, and it is a point I would like to explore a little bit further. He has talked about the absence, fairness and equity of the national energy policy. Let me ask him this question: Why did you, when you were the Minister of Energy, supported by the former Premier, disregard and disallow any negotiations to continue under the Lower Churchill Development Corporation? Why did you abandon that, which clearly put Ottawa at the table as a stakeholder? If you were so concerned about the national energy policy, why haven't you kept ‘Ottawa's feet to the fire' to ensure that fairness and equity prevails on this contract and thus for the people for Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I wish there was some truth to what the hon. member says. Obviously, there is not. I cannot answer the particular question because what he describes is not true.

What is true is this: this government spent its time doing a Guaranteed Winter Availability Contract which reversed the circumstance which have seen CF(L)Co lose in excess of $2 million in two years' time and would have the right only of Quebec putting in the money to keep its hold and therefore gaining a greater share or proportion of CF(L)Co. That was the circumstance.

Let me repeat it again. Under the contract before we changed it - and all these documents will be public tomorrow if the business people who run the corporation see that there is no problem with that. Let me describe it again, because it is important. In 2002, just a year away, CF(L)Co, under its present circumstance, would have lost over $2 million. The current shareholders agreement would have given the exclusive right to Quebec only to put in the shortfall and therefore gain a greater share or proportion of the ownership of CF(L)Co. Over time, if there was no change in the agreements which we negotiated, CF(L)Co, operated with an operation in Labrador at Churchill Falls, would be owned 100 per cent by Hydro-Quebec.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: We spent our time making sure that we changed that circumstance so that Newfoundland and Labrador would always own at least two-thirds of CF(L)Co, because it will provide continuing benefits to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for as long as rain falls out of the sky and water flows down through the Churchill River.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the trust me days for this government are over. The minister talked about the last question which he failed to answer because he cannot, and he will not, because he knows he cannot.

In the last four years can you, the Member for Exploits, in your capacity as Minister of Mines and Energy and a member of Cabinet, demonstrate where the initiatives came from you and your department to correct the national energy policy problem that faces this Province? Can you demonstrate factually, on the record, where you made it the number one issue of your department? If you can, table it. If you cannot, stand up an apologize to the people of the Province!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me tell you and the House what we did not do. We did not follow the advice given by the hon. Member for Ferryland who has stood up repeatedly in this Legislature and said: Why don't you go back to the court case again, in which Mr. Young was a senior advisor who advised the government to take them to court under the water reversion act. It cost millions of dollars in the courts and was a ruling against the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we lost. Here is how brilliant and innovative the Opposition are suggesting they might be. Their only recourse is to go back and try it again in court. The hon. Member for Ferryland has been on his feet in this Legislature saying: Why don't you go back to court again? That is the only answer they have been proposing, that we should go back to court.

Rather than waste time, energy, money and effort doing those kinds of things, we took substantive steps under the Guaranteed Winter Availability Agreement to guarantee that CF(L)Co always stays in the hands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We took steps under the 130 megawatt recall to make sure that there is a guaranteed additional cash flow into the coffers of CF(L)Co and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro which do total, without any doubt and any question, over $1 billion extra dollars to Newfoundland and Labrador over the existing life of the agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: We did those things that will stand the test of time, and everybody will know it and everybody will have to acknowledge it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: For the record, it is clear that the Minister of Health, the former Minister of Mines and Energy did not, in any way, shape or form, take on his federal buddies, and is certainly not going to take them on now because he aspires to be the aspirant, or aspires to be the Premier, the surrogate, to his former boss.

Let me ask him this question. Isn't it a fact that the substantive sort of changes that you made: one, that you have given two Quebec board of directors complete control over CF(L) Co - that is substantive - isn't it a fact that you spent almost $50 million trying to implement what is now a failed framework agreement, $50 million of the public's money, and isn't it a fact that what actually happened, and when the truth comes out it will show clearly, is that you, your former boss, and your entire Administration were duped by the Province of Quebec and Quebec Hydro?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, let me just say this: I hope that I do not hear from the Leader of the Opposition that they would want that there be no negotiations whatsoever with respect to the development of the Lower Churchill, because negotiations with respect to -

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: If the minister wants to ask me a question, let me answer it.

I would not want you negotiating for us, with this crowd. We want negotiations but not on the terms that you have given away, I say to the minister!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do appreciate the answer, so I do understand that the official position of the Official Opposition is that there should be a negotiation to try to develop the Lower Churchill for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure he knows, and he will acknowledge, that negotiations over issues like a $3 billion, $4 billion, $5 billion, $8 billion or $10 billion or $12 billion project - whatever the matter of it is that is happening - do not happen for free. There are very complicated and complex environmental considerations, there are major negotiations with Aboriginal groups, and all of those issues cost money and take time.

Regardless of who sits in the Premier's chair, whichever one on this side it will be for the next ten or twelve years -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: - regardless of which one of us, it will cost some money to negotiate an arrangement. I am sure the Opposition will support that when there is a successful conclusion at some point in time.

Let me say this: There can be no doubt that in the short term we have been successful in securing the future of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and CF(L) Co for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians when it was seriously at risk, starting next year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: That cannot be denied and will not be missed or lost upon the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had a series of questions for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture but, since the Premier refuses to appoint a minister to this $1 billion industry, I will direct my set of questions to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

Minister, we know that when the federal government called the recent election, proposed reforms to the Employment Insurance system died on the Order Paper. Reforms involved an increase in the cap by approximately $9,000, a change in the intensity rule, and one year maternity leave benefits. I ask the minister if she has received any commitments from her federal cousins that those reforms would receive a priority when the House resumes in the winter session?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, the federal government still has the intention of bringing back to the Legislature the planned changes and amendments to the Employment Insurance Act. At this point, I have not received any information to the contrary.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, it is my understanding that there are strong indications the federal government has already decided to scrap one of those three changes, namely the cap. Now there is growing concern the promised changes to the intensity rule may also be scrapped. Surely this minister has been involved in discussions on this matter, which are of such critical importance to this Province.

I ask the minister what representation she, herself, has made to make sure that those changes are carried through?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the strong indications that the member opposite refers to. Every information I have indicates that the federal government proposes to proceed with these changes to employment insurance. In the discussion that I have had with the federal government in this area, we have provided every encouragement to the federal government to proceed with the changes. We have also continued to urge the federal government to look at more and better ways to improve this system.

As I indicated in my first response, to this date I have not received any information, indications, rumours or speculation to the contrary.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that the legislation that died on the Order Paper did not address three primary concerns about the EI program that are important to this Province, namely: increases in qualifying time, the decreases in benefits duration that the federal government implemented when they changed the EI system back in 1996, and the divisor rule. We have not heard anything from the provincial government to protest those changes, even though their impacts on this Province have been devastating.

I ask the minister if she will today make a commitment to make representation to have those changes included in the legislation presently in Ottawa?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, as co-Chair of the Federal Labour Market Forum of Ministers, I have been involved in discussions for the past two years with the federal government on improvements and changes to the Employment Insurance Act; and through the course of all of the discussions that have taken place, as a government and a representative of this government, I have continued to urge the federal government to improve the system that currently exists.

We are committed, and we have said this many times, to working with the federal government to ensure that the employment insurance system is used effectively as a system for those who are unable to find work in this Province. We have had significant ongoing discussions with the federal government on those improvements. We will continue to work with the federal government in the days and weeks to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There being three minutes left in Question Period, the Chair will go to the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services, although it could be answered by another minister, I guess.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: It concerns the home care workers in this Province. In 1997, government set aside $4 million to provide wage increases and workers' compensation coverage for them. I understand that $3 million has been provided to bring their wages up to $5.84 an hour, if you can believe that, the lowest in this country.

I ask the minister: When can home care workers in this Province look forward to a substantial wage increase and also be covered under workers' compensation, as the right of other workers in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure when the increases will actually occur because that is a budgetary matter that is under consideration at this point in time. In the last seven or eight months, however, there has been an advisory committee working on the whole issue of home support. We do recognize that the work in Newfoundland and Labrador is of increasing importance and is undervalued in our society. We do, as a government, absolutely recognize that, and it is a big challenge for all of us in government to deal with. It is going to be a big challenge for the Cabinet and the Minister of Finance, in particular, in the next budget to see if we can start making some progress.

With respect to that, just a few days ago I did receive the report of the advisory committee that has worked for the last several months, since January, submitted to the department within this last week, a framework for home support delivery in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I will gladly table that so everyone can see.

We have not had a chance to look at the recommendations in detail yet; however, we would gladly have a public discussion with respect to this issue because it does make recommendations that the rate should be increased, that the separate rates for separate types of works should be blended and become a single rate, and that we should have actually broader access to home support as an integral part of health and community services in the Province.

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

MR. COLLINS: I thank the minister for his answer, but I wonder if the minister could tell us if there are any plans in the immediate future to provide these workers with coverage under the Workplace Health Safety and Compensation Commission?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That issue, as well, has been addressed in this particular report. It has been one that has absolutely, I guess, been very perplexing for us because it is an issue where we recognize that there are very serious risks of injury because of the nature of the work. We recognize, as a matter of policy and principle, that there needs to be coverage for those who get injured while performing this very valuable work.

We have worked with the Workplace Heath Safety and Compensation Commission, private insurers and others, and looked at several different ways of trying to provide insurance and coverage. It has been prohibitively expensive at this point in time. The $1 million we had put aside would not even begin to provide the coverage for the thousands of workers who are providing that particular service.

I might point out to members of the House that the recommendations for year one in this particular proposal, that I have only had a fleeting look at in the last few days, do suggest that there should be some $30 million put into this system alone in year one of a five-year plan -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to now conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - and it will be quite a challenge for us in the government to see if we can meet those kinds of objectives in the next budgetary exercise.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has ended.

Before we continue with our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to acknowledge in the gallery today the presence of a former Member of the House of Assembly and former Minister of Fisheries, the hon. Aidan Maloney.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee - the best Public Accounts Committee in Canada, according to the Premier -

MR. SULLIVAN: And still Chairman!

MR. J. BYRNE: - and still Chairman - I would like to present the report of the Standing Committee of Public Accounts regarding the public hearing of the Department of Government Services and Lands, of food premises inspections and licensing.

I would like to thank the members of the committee, the staff and the witnesses who appeared before this public hearing, and I present this report to the House today.

Thank you.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. ( Bill 46)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Establish Holocaust Memorial Day In the Province. ( Bill 33)

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition today signed by numerous residents of the Town of South Brook, and their supporters. Let me read into the record of the House the prayer of their petition:

WHEREAS there is only one exit lane from the Trans-Canada Highway where it passes through the Town of South Brook; and

WHEREAS residents cannot safety enter and exist the Trans-Canada Highway west of South Brook bridge; and

WHEREAS there have been accidents when motorists have tried to enter and exit the Trans-Canada Highway which is west of the South Brook bridge;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide an exit lane from the Trans-Canada Highway west of the South Brook bridge so motorists can safety enter and exit the Trans-Canada Highway from both sides of the Town of South Brook;

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I want the members to picture the situation in South Brook. You have a town that is split by the TCH. On one side of South Brook there is an exit lane so drivers can slow down and speed up while off the main highway. This is not so on the other side.

The TCH is a high-speed thoroughfare, and motorists generally travel at or near, and often beyond, the maximum speed. Drivers wanting to exit the TCH and turn into South Brook in the direction that is west of the bridge have to slow down on the main highway. There is no exit lane for breaking. Drivers wanting to enter the TCH just west of the bridge have to turn directly into the main lane on the highway. There is no entry lane for speeding up. Drivers entering and exiting South Brook at this junction will be traveling for a period of time at speeds far less than the usual TCH traveling speed.

Try to imagine yourself traveling down a stretch of highway, when you come upon a car that is going far below the maximum speed. It is a recipe for an accident. Yet, that is precisely the situation that exists at this intersection. There is no lane for slowing down or speeding up prior to getting into the main lane of the highway.

I do not need to describe for members the damage that can be caused by a collision of vehicles on the Trans-Canada Highway. Suffice it to say that drivers are taking their lives into their hands when they enter or leave that one side of South Brook. This matter can be rectified. The government can make that intersection safe. It requires capital investment, but the investment is worth it.

Each year the government makes improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway, double-laning, resurfacing, building overpasses, fixing bridges or whatever. Here is a project that the government should add to its list.

I support this petition and I urge the minister to make it a priority for the safety of not only the South Brook residents but all of those who travel on the highway through the Town of South Brook. This is a very important issue, and I hope it gets priority with the department.

Thank you very much.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

With the permission and the agreement of all hon. members, I would like to move first reading of the two ministerial motions made a little while ago under Motions. I refer to Bill 33, the Holocaust Act, and Bill 46, the Liquor Control Act.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act," carried. (Bill 46)

On motion, Bill 46 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Premier to introduce a bill, "An Act To Establish Holocaust Memorial Day In The Province," carried. (Bill 33)

On motion, Bill 33 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 2, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 2.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will just continue from where I left off the other day on Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957. The other day when I was speaking on this, my time was up. I was just starting to talk about the municipal operating grants and how this government has cut municipal operating grants by something like 60 per cent over the past number of years.

Of those towns which are listed in this bill that they are trying to get through this House of Assembly, to have the guarantees of the government for these various amounts of money for all these municipalities, there are three listed in this bill for my district: The Town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, The Town of Torbay, and the Town of Pouch Cove. The grants would have gone a long way to help out those municipalities, and other municipalities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Bellevue is like the little cracky over there, as usual, mouthing off, trying to say something. He doesn't have a clue what he is talking about, as per usual. He is in the wrong seat, of course, Mr. Chairman.

In the meantime, the road component for the municipalities was also cut. There was a time when the municipalities in this Province got as much as $2,200, I believe, per kilometer. Basically, if a town had twenty kilometers or fifty kilometers, you would just multiply that by $2,200 and they would get X amount of dollars each year. Now, actually, this Administration, this government, cut the road component out completely for some time and then they brought it back in when they saw the error of their ways. I think it is up to $300 or $400 a kilometer now. It is getting back up.

That is the hallmark of this Administration and the Liberal Administration over the years. They cut, cut, cut. They cut to the bone, and then they start giving some back and they think they are after doing wonders. They expect the people, the Province, and the municipalities, to accept it with great gratitude. When they get back to where they start cutting, and add on about another 40 per cent or 50 per cent for inflation over so many years, then you might say thank you - or, I might say thank you - but not before that point in time.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Bellevue, he is in the wrong chair. When he gets in his own chair and asks a question, I may respond to him.

With respect to this legislation, we have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I said to the Member for Bellevue that when he gets to his own chair I may respond to him. He is in his own chair now, asking questions, and I have decided I am not going to respond to him.

We have many issues with respect to this piece of legislation. We see now, members on the other side of the House - we have the Minister Health, the Minister of Mines and Energy, and the former Minister of Fisheries, running for the leadership, running for Premier.

The Minister of Health says that if he becomes the leader - and this is, by the way, how he got all the support of all of the members on the back of the House - he promised that he would not call an election for two years. The reason why he won't call an election for two years is because everyone on that side of the House are frightened to death now, that if he calls an election they are gone. That is the reason why and that is why he got their support; but being Liberals, do not take his word, do not count on it because if something comes up -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Any time, any place, I say. Come down in Cape St. Francis and run against me, I say to the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: ((Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh yes, come down. You are welcome to run against me any time; but back to it.

We had the members over there - now it depends on who wins the leadership, what impact it will have on this piece of legislation because, of course, when we are trying to guarantee loans for municipalities, if the new Premier - who is going to be Premier anywhere from six months to two years because once the election is called they are finished. It will depend on the Premier what kind of money he puts back into Municipal Affairs and in Municipal Operating Grants, that the towns may not have to borrow so much money in the future.

We have municipalities in this Province where the out-migration has been devastating. There are houses up for sale that were probably valued at $50,000 or $60,0000, as many as seven, eight or nine years ago, being sold for $4,000 and $5,000. One of the reasons, of course, is we have all these people who have gone out of the Province and we have municipalities in dire straits because the assessed value of the houses have gone down. The municipalities are not collecting the taxes that they would have collected because the families have gone. They are not collecting the same amounts of money because the assessments are down.

We have a situation where the government, who have been talking about having balanced budgets for the past number of years - but we know that they were playing with numbers. They were not balanced budgets. There were deficits each year. They used to throw in this $30 million contingency fund which is really a slush fund for emergency situations. We have the government of the day telling the people in this Province that they are not going to cheat them unfairly. We talk about a government of the day who talks about openness, fairness and balance, and going to make changes to the Freedom of Information Act, and what do we see? The first opportunity that they had to show their sincerity they fell far short. They would not back up the people on the PAC to allow the Auditor General to go in and do an investigation of the Churchill Falls agreement.

The Churchill Falls agreements; the ones which were signed in March of 1998 are so important to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have seen as much as $600 million flow down the river to Quebec each year. Now we have a situation where we very well could see that continue on for much longer than it would have been. It was supposed to end in forty-one years down the road, I believe. Now, with these agreements signed, it could go on for eternity. We do not know, and they refused to give us the information we want; but if it was a proper deal and they were so proud of the deal, I say to you, would they not make it public for all the Province to see? If they were that proud of it they would put it out for the public to study, for the opposition to study, for business people in the Province to study and see how good or how bad it is. Obviously they are hiding something.

Mr. Chairman, the situation we see now in this Province with - and it is another important factor because they say: We are trying to revitalize rural Newfoundland. They had a committee appointed and they were going to do studies to see how they could improve the lives of the people in rural Newfoundland. What did they come up with? Nothing. The only thing they came up with back last July, I think it was, was this brainwave - that they thought was a brainwave but everybody knows it was not. As far as I am concerned, it was a contemplated effort to pit, as they so often do, one group against another group.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Bellevue is not in his seat again, and he is mouthing off. Look, go back to your seat and I might respond to your questions, I say to the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Something, I would say to the Member for Bellevue, that you would know absolutely nothing about because you have to have a brain to have a brainwave, which you are seriously lacking. Go back to your seat now and keep quiet like the good little boy that you normally are when the Premier is around.

Rural Newfoundland versus Urban Newfoundland; that is their plan. It is disgraceful that they would even contemplate such a thing. They are talking about taking 278 jobs; and we are talking about 278 families that could be slit up. We have people within these families where two of the spouses are working and one is going to have to give their job. For what reason?

I stated here in the House of Assembly the other day, and the Premier basically confirmed what I said, in his words. I said what is going on here now is that when they decided to send these positions out of town - the positions, not the people because many of these people are not going to be able to take these jobs for various reasons.

I attended a meeting down in Hotel Newfoundland where hundreds and hundreds of people showed up and they gave their stories about how this was going to impact upon them. It was heart wrenching.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am going to get back to that. I have a note made about this right here.

Yes, and it was heart wrenching to hear the stories that were coming forward down there; but the plan is -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

I am going to be up the whole afternoon anyway. There are four finance bills coming.

MR. BARRETT: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: No leave? Mr. Chairman, if the Member for Bellevue is saying no leave, he can't, because he is not in his chair. So I will continue on.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Are you in your chair? You cannot say no leave. You cannot speak. I do not hear anybody else saying no leave.

It was shameful to hear these people down there telling their stories. What is happening here is that the government is hoping - now let us analyze this a bit, all of these positions are going from an urban area to other urban areas. They are not going to rural Newfoundland. They are not going to impact upon rural Newfoundland. They have gone to all Liberal districts, by the way. What is happening here is they are hoping that many of these people will not go, then they will have twenty positions in Grand Falls, or thirty positions in Corner Brook created so then they can create a few job or whatever the numbers are, in each given community. It is not impacting at all really, compared to the turmoil and strife they are causing these families in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; completely political.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No problem, Mr. Chairman.

Anyway, what they are doing here, as I said, they are abusing their power. They are trying to say they are doing something for rural Newfoundland. They are doing absolutely nothing for rural Newfoundland. They are trying to pit urban Newfoundland against rural Newfoundland. We have seen it in the past. We have seen this Administration pit municipality against municipality. We have seen this Administration pit one union group against another union group. Divide and conquer, that is their attitude; and has been since I have been in this House of Assembly.

I have been here now with three Premiers. There was Clyde Wells when I first came here in 1993. Then it was Mr. Tobin, who scurried off to the mainland and who was on CBC with Doug Letto and said straight into the television camera: I am going to stay for my full mandate. And people on that side of the House were foolish enough to believe him. Mr. Chairman, I will tell you how long ago I knew he was going. The last day we sat in this House of Assembly, back in May, the last we were leaving, I waved to him and said to the Premier: This is the last time I will see you sitting in that chair. What did he do? He smiled and walked away. Now that is what was going on back in May.

Now, we have Premier Tulk. Premier Tulk to me is a prime example of how miracles do exist. For that man to be sitting in the Premier's chair when just a few short years ago he was sitting in the back benches and now he is the Premier of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I congratulate him. More power to him; but, it is proof that miracles exist.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I had my miracle, I say to the member. I have had my miracle.

MR. SULLIVAN: Jack, so you are trying to say there is no hope for him yet.

MR. J. BYRNE: There is no hope. That is beyond miracles, that is. It is beyond miracles that the Member for Bellevue would ever become Premier. It isn't going to happen, no such thing. That is beyond miracles.

I say to the Member for Bellevue, think back and you will know that I have had my miracle, twice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Good point, yes. Very good, you picked up on it. Very good, I say to the Member for Bellevue. He is brighter than he looks.

Now back to the point I was making with respect to rural Newfoundland. The Premier stood in his place, and this is what he said: If I was living in St. John's or the Northeast Avalon and I was going to move to a position, say in Gander, Grand Falls, or Corner Brook, I would, more than likely, look for a house in that community. But, the Premier stood in his place the other day - he confirmed what I said - and said: So, what is the problem with somebody driving 40 kilometers or 60 kilometers? If I am going to go to an urban centre in Newfoundland, Gander, Grand Falls, or whatever, I would more than likely go there; but, the Freudian slip was that those are going to be vacant positions and people around those urban centers are going to apply for them and possibly get them. See, that is the Freudian slip. He let it go. The Premier let it slide, and they will be hand-picked, those positions. You can mark it down because that is the hallmark of this Administration. They will be hand-picked. Why will they be hand-picked? Because, we saw the complete dismantlement of the Public Service Commission. When the Tories were in power they put in the Public Service Commission for hiring purposes. There would be x number of people interviewed and there would be three recommended to the minister, and he would have the final choice then; but, not anymore. It all comes in now through the line departments. No more Public Service Commission.

Another thing that this group has destroyed over the years - and it has an impact on the money that is being spent by this administration and the previous administration, going right back to 1989, was the destruction of the Public Tendering Act. The people over on the other side can shake their heads all they want, but we have seen proof of it. I have proof here that that is the case.

When we look at some of the court cases that have gone on. We had the cottage hospital contracts which were up to $5 million, and over the term of the contract it (inaudible) $20 million to $30 million. I am going to get into that later on today more than likely, so I am not going to go forever on that; but this is a finance bill and I am going to talk about finances.

The Member for Bellevue made a comment: What about in 1984, with the forestry movement to Corner Brook? The Chair now, will be quite familiar with that. There is no doubt about that because I think he used to work with forestry. What we seen and the arguments that the present Premier, I am pretty sure, and the former Premier made for moving these positions was to get closer to the service. He said: for example, take forestry. Again, a red herring because forestry had already been moved. They were not being completely honest on that one, I say to you, not by any stretch of the imagination. They were trying to rationalize and justify what they were doing to the public, figuring that many of the people out there would not understand or realize that forestry had already gone. Well people would say: In Corner Brook, forestry, pulp and paper; yes, it makes sense. But, they were already out there.

There are other ones that will be moving. The one going to Stephenville - I can't recall it now. Apparently, from the information that I have, the infrastructure that is going to be required, the computer systems that are going to be required are going to astronomical. The money that is being spent on this - we still do not have a handle on that. We seen the Premier stand in his place the other day and, for the first time, admitting that they do not have a handle on the money. They do not know, it is an estimate; and he would not even give us the estimates of what it is going to cost the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Aside from the financial end of it just the social end of it is going to be completely - what would be the right word - really difficult for the families themselves.

I know of one family where the wife is an x-ray technologist in the Health Sciences Centre and the husband works with another government department. They have two children in school, so what are they going to do? Who is going to give up their job? Or, will they have to split up and travel back and forth when there is absolutely no need for it?

I can support decentralization - not a problem - but do it with a proper plan in place. Do a proper study to look at the impact on the individuals, and do it over a reasonable period of time. Do it through attrition. All of those types of factors can be applied to a move like this; but, no, no, no! Brainwave - done on the spur of the moment. Let's do this. Let's help out our buddies who are in trouble. Let's help out our Liberal candidates or our Liberal members who are in trouble, and try to put some jobs there. Make it look like we are doing something. They are not. They are not doing anything positive for Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are a number of other bills that we are going to have to speak on here today, so I am going to clue up my remarks now. Hopefully the Minister of Finance will take heed of some of the comments I have made on this issue, on this bill, and, in conjunction with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, hopefully in next year's budget will put some more money in the road component and the municipal operating grants for the municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MATTHEWS: I am trying to visualize what you are going to look like over there in twenty years' time.

MR. J. BYRNE: I can tell the Minister of Finance that it is impossible to visualize me here in twenty years' time. I am not planning on being here in twenty years' time, but I will be here as long as I want.

MR. MATTHEWS: We will get rid of you, one way or the other, before then.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, it is like this: I will go on my own terms, I tell the Minister of Finance. If the same person runs against me as ran again me the last two times, I will be alright.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the contribution and comments of the members on the other side of the House, and indeed all those who have spoken to Bill 13, and I move second reading.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957." (Bill 13)


Resolution

"That it is expedient to bring in the measure further to amend the Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the guarantee of the repayment of loans made to, and the advance of loans to certain local authorities."

On motion, resolution carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed a resolution and a bill consequent thereto, without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Motion 5, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Motion 5, An Act Respecting Income Tax. (Bill 29)

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Bill 29 is a bill that covers the imposition and the collection, and all of the other regulations with respect to the collection of provincial sales tax. Provincial sales tax, of course, in terms of the personal income tax side of it, is a pretty significant part of the revenue of the Province, and this particular bill that is being introduced today, Bill 29, is a bill that does three things; or, the amendments to the bill essentially do three things.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Personal income tax, I am sorry.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: That is all. It is not a lot of money for the federal government but it is a lot for us.

The bill today that we are introducing, Bill 29, accomplishes three things in terms of amendments to it. First of all, it gives rise to the second wave, if you like, or the second year of a three-year provincial tax reduction program that was announced in October of 1998. It ensures that, come January 1 of this year, there will be an additional reduction of income tax on a personal basis for everybody in the Province virtually. At the end of the three-year program, as we announced at that time, there will be a total of $187 million less personal income tax being paid in the Province by people on a provincial tax basis. That is the first effect of the amendments to this bill.

The second reason why this bill is before us is that, because we had to bring a bill into the House to do one other very important thing, we have moved to consolidate some of the previous amendments into the act. To that extent, there is a fair bit of housekeeping taking place here with respect to this piece of legislation.

The third and most important part of the Bill 29 debate and the Bill 29 effect is that next year, January 1, 2001, as we have already announced on a couple of occasions, as a Province we will be moving, for provincial personal tax purposes, from a percentage of federal tax as being our tax burden to a straight percentage on income. The system that we will be using as of January 1 to calculate personal income taxes for individuals in the Province is what is called the TONI system, tax on income system. It is a system that -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: What is that?

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, I say to the hon. the Member for Ferryland, let me explain the effect of it. It de-links us from the federal system, as he would know. The other ten provinces in the country, interestingly, are moving in tandem with us in the same direction.

To the point of not passing along tax adjustments or further tax reduction on a provincial basis when the federal government lowers their rate, I would point out to the hon. member, and he may or may not be aware of this, that while we did not take advantage or seek to do that in this year, the year 2000 - because last February, you will recall, the federal government had a reduction in their personal income tax and, as a result of what they did, in addition to what we had announced, we passed along an extra $12 million to the people of the Province this year. I would point out to the hon. member that at least one province in the Atlantic region, and I do not criticize them for it, as they have a serious budgetary situation in Nova Scotia - who, I suppose, he would allude to as being cousins - they moved in July of last year to claw back, in effect, any extra income tax break on a personal basis that the federal government's -

MR. SULLIVAN: Is it sixty-two now?

MR. MATTHEWS: Sixty-two; fifty-five next year.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is sixty-two now.

MR. MATTHEWS: It is sixty-two now, and it will go down to fifty-five next year, and it will go down to forty-nine the following year. That is if we are calculating -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) when it was announced.

MR. MATTHEWS: We said, providing we can sustain the tax reduction. What I am really saying today is that, January 1 of next year, the tax reduction, the second year of the three-year plan that we announced two years ago, will take effect. So, we are moving to put in place the $80 million reduction next year that we announced in October of 1998.

The rate of personal income tax being paid in the future on the T1 or the personal income returns that will be used by people in this Province, and all the provinces in Canada, will be expressed as a percentage of income as opposed to a percentage of the federal rate. Next year, our rate will be approximately, I think around 19 or 19.62 per cent. I do not have that figure right in front of me, but it will be an absolute rate as opposed to 55 per cent of the federal rate.

MR. SULLIVAN: There are three categories.

MR. MATTHEWS: Three rates.

MR. SULLIVAN: So the lowest rate now at (inaudible) would be 55 per cent of seventeen -

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: - which is about 9.37, so we would set ours at 9.37, in the lower bracket, and the next bracket would be -

MR. MATTHEWS: I am not sure what you - not nine. It is around nineteen, I believe -

MR. SULLIVAN: No, that is the low bracket. The next bracket would be 55 per cent of twenty-six and then 55 per cent of twenty-nine.

MR. MATTHEWS: What we are doing, Mr. Chairman, is moving to a straight conversion of the rates as announced in the three-year tax reduction strategy to absolute percentage rates of personal income as opposed to -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) 55 per cent of the federal tax (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Fifty-five per cent of the federal tax, which is what the rate would otherwise have been next year -

MR. SULLIVAN: You will get the same dollar equivalent (inaudible)?

MR. MATTHEWS: We will the exact same dollar equivalent. I think our projection is that we will actually be passing along about $1 million more than we had anticipated as a result of 55 per cent of the federal rate; but, for all practical purposes, it is a straight conversion from a percentage of federal tax to a percentage of income.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I can get for you what they would be. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, they may be in the bill but I do not think they are because they are by regulation, I believe.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't think they are.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, they are not in the bill. This is just legislation, the framework that allows us to move in that direction.

These are, without elaborating beyond what is necessary, the three effects of this piece of legislation. It moves us to a tax on income system, de-linking us from the federal tax rate in calculating our personal income taxes as individuals in the Province. It cleans up a lot of amendments that are currently in place but have not been consolidated. Thirdly, it affirms the three-year tax reduction strategy, the second year of which will kick in January 1, 2001.

While the bill is rather thick and rather lengthy in terms of the bill that is before the House, fifty-seven pages, as I say, the reason for that is essential because it consolidates a lot of amendments that have already taken place to the Income Tax Act.

I would commend this piece of legislation to the members of the House for their consideration. Their support, I hope, will be there for the principles that are moving us in the direction of the tax on income system, which is the cornerstone or the main elements in the piece of legislation that is before us.

I move - well, I will not move second reading of it because we have not debated it yet, but we are in Committee and I commend consideration of the bill to the members of the House who wish to speak to it.

MADAM CHAIR (M. Hodder): The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to say a few words on Bill 29, An Act Respecting Income Tax. The minister gave a -

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you having another brainwave?

AN HON. MEMBER: You do not have to worry about that (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Exactly.

The minister introduced this bill and made a few comments on it in second reading, Madam Chair. He mentioned three things. He did not go into a lot of detail, but this is a very comprehensive piece of legislation. There are something like fifty-seven pages. There are not too many pieces of legislation or bills that come to this House with fifty-seven pages. I am going to ask a few questions and make a few comments on this.

The minister says there are three reasons why this is coming to the House at this point in time. The first is that it is the second year of a provincial tax reduction and this needs to be done to help them implement that; also, it ensures a reduction this coming year; and, also, it is consolidating many previous amendments. That, in itself, is a very important point to be made; because so often we see legislation go through this House of Assembly, being rushed through, and shortly thereafter we have amendments come right, left and centre. Hopefully, whatever they want to do is included in this bill of fifty-seven pages.

Also, he said that next year, January 1, 2001 we are going to move from a per cent of the federal tax to a straight tax on income system. I have to say that we, on this side of the House, support that philosophy or that idea.

Loyola, get up, boy.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is not up.

MR. J. BYRNE: He was almost that time.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he is talking (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, there are a few points I want to bring out, Madam Chair. The Progressive Conservative Party supports the move to the tax on income system. In fact, we advocated that change over two years ago. Again, what do we have? Another policy being adopted by the Liberal Administration. So often we see this happen. They are very good at this, I have to say, Madam Chair. Both the federal government and the provincial Liberals are very good at adopting other people's ideas. We saw that in the last federal election, where we saw the Liberal, Jean Chrétien, adopt no other than the Alliance or the Reform Party policies. That is what kind of a panic they were in.

Also, a tax on income system enhances the Province's ability to better tune the tax system to its own revenue needs. Very important factor! Very important point! Because, before, when we were linked to the federal income tax, I think our percentage was 67 per cent of the federal income tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sixty-nine.

MR. J. BYRNE: Sixty-nine? I will correct that in a minute. I have that here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sixty-nine.

MR. J. BYRNE: Sixty-nine, okay, I will take his word for it; 69 per cent, the highest in the country.

In fact, Madam Chair, now we can be masters of our own destiny with respect to our income tax. If the federal government increased it, we would probably have a windfall, but if they decreased their rate we lost. Right now, when this comes into place, we won't be hooked or hinged or dependent on that. We can make -

AN HON. MEMBER: We will be closer to becoming a sovereign state.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, I can talk at length on that too if I wanted, if I had been around in 1949.

AN HON. MEMBER: I can see you agreeing with that.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I know where I would have been back in 1948 and 1949; there is no doubt about that. Once we joined Canada; done deal. Work with what you have then and accept it. You had to accept it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you in 1948?

MR. J. BYRNE: In 1948 I wasn't thought about, I say to the member; 1951, that is the year.

With respect to this system, there is no doubt in my mind, we can make better projections on the revenues in the long term, over a five-year period, versus depending completely upon the federal government and what they are doing. So we are becoming more masters of our own destiny with respect to revenues, with respect to income tax.

Now, if the Member for Bellevue could follow that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Never heard tell of the man. What are you talking about?

Also, this legislation, Madam Chair, allows the province to use tax brackets, tax deductions, tax credits - I will get used to it, I guarantee you. It is only once I slipped up. It allows the Province to use tax brackets, tax deductions, tax credits, etc. that more fairly reflect income levels and social needs in the Province. Again, we have the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador where we have so many people below the poverty rate. Basically it is a sin, it is wrong to tax those individuals. Now, we can, and we should, set that at what this Legislature, the government of the day, feels is a right and proper level. Tax deductions or tax credits - all good points to be made. Also, a ‘made for Newfoundland' tax on income system will also give greater flexibility to the Province to design tax policies to promote investment and real job creation in the Province of Newfoundland.

Madam Chair, I will give you one example of a tax. It is not an income tax, I suppose, but it is a tax. It was a regressive tax, it was a tax that I don't think any business in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador wanted, of course. It was the payroll tax. We have legislation coming before this House to address that, so I won't go into it at length now, but I will when the bill comes to the House.

When I was in private business, before I came into the House of Assembly, I talked to other people in similar businesses and they, when they brought it in first - this administration, by the way, the Liberal government, brought in a payroll tax, an regressive tax, and they set the rate. If you had a payroll of $300,000 you paid a tax. Some of the larger businesses, with ten or fifteen employees, it wouldn't hurt them if their payroll was going to go over $300,000. That was bad enough. Then what did they do? They dropped the level to $100,000 and made it worse, so even the smaller businesses, with two or three employees, would not hire because they did not want to go over that limit. It was a regressive tax. We have been advocating over the past number of years, since I have been in the House of Assembly, that that should be scraped. Again, we saw this administration ridicule us, the members on this side of the House, -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, you should ask your Minister of Finance, because they are doing the very thing we asked them to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: You just can't stand up and criticize, you need to have solutions, real solutions.

MR. J. BYRNE: Real solutions! Is that like - what is it - real health?

AN HON. MEMBER: Real solutions. You can't just get up and criticize.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Finance, today, is again accepting one of our policies - another one - and trying to cut back on the payroll tax, with the aim of eventually wiping it out altogether.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I would suggest, Madam Chair, that if the Member for Bellevue wants to continue opening his mouth and talking nonsense, he should go back to his seat, then stand on his feet and say the usual nonsense that everybody in the Province can hear him say. He doesn't have the guts for that. He doesn't have the guts to get up and make the foolish comments he is making there now.

Now, Madam Chair, that is the real challenge for this Province. We must stimulate economic growth, we must gain maximum flexibility over all available tools, and promote economic expansion. This is one of them. This piece of legislation can help with that. Again listening to this side of the House; it takes a long time for it to sink in. It is repetitious. I remember the former Premier of the Province, Smallwood, all he would do is repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat until finally it would sink in. That is what we have to do over here. We have to repeat, repeat and repeat.

Also, Madam Chair, all other provinces either have moved to a tax on income system or are in the process of making the move. Quebec has administered its own income tax system for many, many years. As I said earlier, I don't like Newfoundland doing what they do on the mainland just because they think it is a good idea to do it because someone else does it. But, I think, in this case, it is a good move.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Bellevue, again, he is like the Muppets, the guys up in the gallery. What were their names? I will remember it, it will come to me.

Here is a point, I would say to the Minister of Finance - I hope he is listening - one concern with any change in policy is the impact it may have on cost. I presume that the government plans to continue with the existing arrangement to have the federal government collect the provincial taxes on their behalf. Just because they are not going to be linked to the percentage does not mean that they have to change the way that they collect the tax. Perhaps, in the course of the debate, the minister will comment on that and also tell us if there will be any additional administrative costs or fees to the Province as a result of the change, and how much. Hopefully, the Minister of Finance is listening to this or has someone taking notes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Jack, I sent him out to get the percentages. They are in section 7 of the bill.

MR. J. BYRNE: I have them here. The percentages are there, I say to the Member for Ferryland.

Madam Chair, a few more notes I want to refer to here with respect to this piece of legislation because I think this is a very important piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Time for a non-confidence motion.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I would say.

This bill sets out to replace the current income tax system with the new tax on income system, as I stated, a system that will come into effect in 2001. According to the news release of the finance minister on July 26, 2000, all provinces but Quebec are moving to the tax on income system. He stated that. The minister said, the new tax brackets are - it is in his press release - 10.57 per cent on taxable income, zero to $29,590. He said that there is a 16.16 per cent on taxable income $29,590 to $59,180. Also, 18.02 per cent on income of $59,180 and up. Also, the first $7,410 is tax free. In my mind I think that should be higher. I mean $7,400 is tax free. That is well below the poverty line, I think, isn't it? I do not know what the poverty line is for a single income family but that definitely is well below it. I say to the Minister of Finance: what is the poverty line in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for a single income family of say two children?

MR. MATTHEWS: I am not sure. The Minister of Human Resources and Development -

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. Would you know that? What is the poverty line for single income family of say four?

MR. SULLIVAN: I think clause 7 will tell you.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, $7,400 is pretty low. What we are stating here with respect to this bill, the first $7,400 is going to be tax free. If someone earns $7,400, that is well below the poverty line; it has to be. I was thinking somewhere up around $13,000 or $14,000. That is well below, yes. So, I suggest to the minister that he have another look at that figure, that $7,400, because that is really low, in my mind.

There is a 9 per cent surtax on income over $60,000. Madam Chair, we remember during the 1999 election our party called for significant income tax cuts. We were, at that point, the province with the highest income tax in the country; 69 per cent of the basic federal tax rate. We were asking for cuts at that time. We were laughed at, we were ridiculed, and we were mocked by the Minister of Finance. As a matter of fact, I say to the Minister of Finance, the minister had a press conference saying that we could not do it, that the Province could not do it. Three months after they were elected, what were they doing? The exact same thing that we suggested on this side of the House.

Again, Madam Chairperson, that administration say one thing and do another.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: They run an election -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

Could I remind the hon. member that his time has expired.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Madam Chairperson.

I am up the whole afternoon anyway. You will get what you want.

MADAM CHAIR: Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: Leave granted.

MR. J. BYRNE: Are you sure now?

MR. SULLIVAN: He is the critic. He is the first (inaudible) and the critic can go for an hour.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, that time will come. A time and place for everything, and I am the man to do it, I can say to the Member for Virginia Waters.

MR. NOEL: A man for all seasons.

MR. J. BYRNE: A man for all seasons.

Anyway, back to the point I was making. They will run a campaign, middle of the road, even to the left, and then when they get in they do it completely different; but they are starting to learn.

Also, the government balked at our tax cut proposal at the time, as I said, and they had a conference to ridicule us and say it could not happen, but we were vindicated when the economists and the businesses came out and supported what we had said, as usual, I say to you, Madam Chairperson, again.

In the November, 1999 fall mini-Budget the minister announced that government would reduce the basic personal income tax rate from 69 per cent of the federal tax to 49 per cent plus surtaxes in stages over three years. Here we get what the minister was talking about.

In January 1 of 2000 it will be dropped to 62 per cent - I have a few questions that are going to come up here shortly. In January of 2001, equivalent to 55 per cent of the basic federal tax on income system. In 2002, equivalent of 49 per cent of the federal tax. Surtaxes were to increase in stages too. The tax cut was supposed to amount to $30 million in 2000, $60 million in 2001, $85 million in 2002, in each year thereafter. Total: $175 million over those three years.

On July 26, of this past summer, the minister announced the shift to the tax on income system would indeed take place for the 2001 taxation year. This bill is to give effect to that. In his announcement he said the provincial savings added to the federal savings in the 2000 tax year would total $60 million. I hope the minister is listening to this, I want him to respond to this when he gets up. He said: the provincial savings added to the federal savings in the 2000 tax year would total $60 million. The tax savings in 2000 would be $60 million, as previously announced. The minister said that would equal a total of $102 million in the first two years. Well, shouldn't that have been $120 million? Do sixty and sixty add up to 120? Or, do sixty and sixty add up to 102, I say to the Minister of Finance? If we find out this year we are into a deficit situation, we can understand why, when the Minister of Finance cannot add sixty and sixty. I will ask him to address that when he is on his feet. Does that mean there will be no change in the amount of the tax collected in 2000 and 2001 since the savings to taxpayers will be the same each year, relative to 1999.

This legislation lays out detailed calculations of the various tax rates and deductions related to dependents, spouses, pensioners, the disabled, students et cetera. Can he explain if in any of these categories there will be significant changes in the amount of taxes collected or deducted, as the case may be? A question for the minister.

Next, the various corporate taxes, deductions, exemptions, and credits are also outlined in this legislation. What are those changes to be? Are there any changes anticipated to the EDGE legislation in light of this act? We see new businesses coming into this Province that are given major tax breaks. So will this legislation, or anything with respect to this legislation, impact upon the EDGE status companies or any potential EDGE status companies? I think that is something that the minister should address.

Section 34 involves the harmonized sales tax credit. We have asked the minister to consider an HST rebate or a tax credit related to the home heating fuel, especially for people with low incomes, as I spoke about earlier (inaudible) disposable income to handle the rising cost and rising tax burden. Hopefully though, I would say, that this bill will reduce some of the tax burdens. Will this be a place to specify such a tax credit? Would the government consider it? Again, questions I am hoping the minister is listening to and hearing; very important points.

Also, under the HST legislation we gave up certain powers and flexibility over the retail sales tax legislation to the federal government and to two maritime provinces. The government argued then that a cooperative approach was best. With this legislation, the government seems to be making the exact opposite argument with respect to the income tax, that more control and flexibility for the Province is better. Would the minister like to comment on the apparent contradiction in those two positions? Does the Province now regret it gave up too much control and flexibility under the HST deal it signed? I would say they probably do regret it now. Again, something I think we probably advised against at the time.

MR. SULLIVAN: They told us that sales would increase so much that it make up for it.

MR. J. BYRNE: Exactly.

MR. SULLIVAN: And our sales are going where?

MR. J. BYRNE: Down.

MR. SULLIVAN: Down.

MR. J. BYRNE: Our sales are going down. With respect to that, the HST is on home heating oil, isn't it? Is the HST on home heating oil? Again, I have to go back to the seniors - and I know the government may have put in something last year. I think they gave a $200 rebate or something; but $200 over the winter months is very little, especially when the rates have gone up. Every time the heating oil goes up, of course, there is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't care. I do care what the minister says; that is not right. I find that hard to believe or understand. He is saying now that the government is also losing when the gas prices increase.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tax on a tax.

MR. J. BYRNE: We are taxing on taxes, that is right. In the meantime, that amount of gas that is sold in this Province, it has to be a windfall. He should be able to take some of that money and give more than a $200 rebate.

MR. SULLIVAN: Jack, there are only two other provinces who went along with it.

MR. J. BYRNE: Which ones were they?

MR. SULLIVAN: New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and none of the others. They said they expect to have then all. The only province in Atlantic Canada that did not go along with it, that is the province that got the jobs and the centre for collections and so on; the one that did not go along with it.

MR. J. BYRNE: Which one was that, P.E.I.?

MR. SULLIVAN: Prince Edward Island.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, there you go. I will make that comment.

With respect to the HST, the only provinces that went along with it were Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. We were supposed to get all the provinces. Nobody else came on side, none of the other provinces.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) with the HST. Is that all they wanted to do with it?

MR. J. BYRNE: That is one way of looking at it; cut a certain percentage. What I am saying here is that in this isolated case - we are talking about the seniors - I mean everybody is suffering because of the rates. The oil companies are controlling the world, as far as I am concerned; but we have the government getting a windfall when the rates go up, especially in the winter months when there is more use. That is a fact, that has to be a fact. Couldn't they take a certain percentage of that windfall and put back more than $200 to the seniors? I mean we have seniors in this Province who are trying to decide if they are going to pay their heat bill or if they are going to put food on the table. I mean, where have we come to? That is shameful.

MR. NOEL: Everybody agrees with that.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, let's do something about it. It can be done, I say to the Member for Virginia Waters.

Sections 13 and 14 involved tuition and education tax credit. We have witnessed exorbitant tuition fees. Increases in the past decade have left our students with mountains of debt and forced many from the Province. What the system needs is more post-secondary funding, lower tuition fees, and more help for the students. In the interim, might this be a good time to do something more progressive with the tax system to help alleviate the burden on students and in-debt graduates?

What we could be looking at here, Madam Chairperson - we have brought it up many times in this House of Assembly, the critic for Education, our leader, the debt that the students of post-secondary education are falling into, leaving with $30,000, $40,000 and $50,000-worth of debt starting out in life. I think that something has to be said.

If you look to Ireland, and how Ireland have turned around their economy - obviously in the European market over there - the European countries put a lot of money in there but education was a prime target for them to educate their young people. I have been there and seen young people - it is just such a stark difference between Ireland and Newfoundland. All our young people are up and leaving.

My son went away to university last year, out of grade twelve. He had a scholarship that was offered to him - he had certain marks, good marks. He applied to two universities. He applied to MUN and he applied to St. Thomas. St. Thomas offered him a $12,000 scholarship; MUN, $2,000. Why would that be? If they were being properly funded they should be trying their best to keep our brains here in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is only logical and sensible to me. Yet, they let him go away, and many more.

I have been attending high school graduations down in Torbay, at Holy Trinity, and every year we see students with these big scholarships leaving the Province. Why can't they offer them here, to keep them here? That is something that needs to be looked at. I think if we want to turn around our economy we have to keep the young people here. That is what this is all about. I am a bit sidelined here now. If we put the proper money into it - why can one university offer $12,000 - but, just to end it, Madam Chair, he decided to stay home this year and give up his scholarship, and go to MUN. I am glad, he is glad and my wife is glad also. He likes it home, so decided to give it up and stay at home. That is good, but there are not a lot of people who can do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I can give you a number of reasons, I suppose. He likes Newfoundland, he likes home, and he does not want to leave the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Hopefully, he will never have to leave, but unless we do something to turn around the economy here in the Province to keep the young people here - I hope he never has too leave. We are seeing too many leave the Province today.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, the Member for Virginia Waters said: Tell him to keep voting Liberal. It is like this, if he wants to be forced out of the Province and not be able to come back here, then yes, he should vote Liberal, but I think he is a bit smarter than that. He came back here because he had a very good MHA in his district.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: He lives in Outer Cove. That is where he lives, I say to the Member for Virginia Waters.

On that, I think I have made my point.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, Outer Cove is the community. It is the town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove. By the way, there were often times when we were questioned, when I was mayor: How come you did not change the name? What we did, we had a referendum. Can you believe it? We said: make suggestions or do you want to keep the name? Here is what happened. We had 50 per cent, right down the middle, who said: Keep the name, Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove. About four or five other name suggestions came in, with different percentages. One was St. Francis by the Sea. So we decided, because the majority of the people wanted it, we left it alone. We did not do what that bunch over there did in a referendum, to use a referendum to take away the rights of the minority. We did not do that down there, I can guarantee you that.

This is interesting, I am glad I am on this topic now. I was watching the former Premier in Ottawa up on a debate with some lady with the Alliance, I think it was. They got talking about Stockwell Day and about having all these referenda on any issue, and if you had 300,000 names you could have a vote or a referendum to decide anything. And the man said - if I can get this straight, I hope I can -

AN HON. MEMBER: Which man?

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Brian Tobin, the former Premier, the Minister of Industry, or whatever it is up there in Ottawa. This is what he said to her: You can't have referendum or referenda to take away the rights of the minorities. Now can you imagine him saying that?

MR. SULLIVAN: Who said that?

MR. J. BYRNE: Brian Tobin, the former Premier here, made that statement on national TV, that you cannot have referenda to take away the rights of the minorities. And what did he do here? Am I allowed to use the word hypocritical? Is that parliamentary, to use the word hypocritical?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, he is and has been.

Now I am going to sit down. I think I have made my points on this piece of legislation. If anybody else wants to have a few words, certainly go for it.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I have a few comments on the particular bill. The figures that are listed in clause 7 are the percentages that will apply directly. I would assume the administration of it, the collection is going to occur by the federal government as usual. Quebec is separate. I guess we will (inaudible) the rates, the same standard form. I did not read all the details of the bill. I went through it and I know the Minister of Finance is not tuned in here to my questions. Maybe when the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi stops bending his ear, I might get an answer.

It is the intent of this government to continue to have the administration and the collection of this done by the federal government on the same standard tax form. I did not see anything here that says otherwise.

Also, I guess, they are locking in a certain percent now. The dates on which the federal taxes become due to reduce, on those dates, I would assume we are not going to follow accordingly and get the benefit of that reduction that are already announced in federal taxes which Paul Martin has announced.

MR. MATTHEWS: We will be de-linked from the federal tax (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, which means that bringing it in now will make sure that we do not reap the benefits that are going to come from announcements by the federal government on taxes now, because we have divorced our tax structure from the federal structure.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, we will get the value of what the feds are announcing, obviously - their rate is going down - but we won't get an incremental amount as a result of what they might or might not do.

MR. SULLIVAN: Are you saying that this rate here - because I see it differently - is tied into the current rate that exists today, December 2000, these percentages? Right now, the lowest federal bracket is 17 per cent. If you take 62 per cent of that, it comes to 10.57 - rounded off as in your bill - the next brackets were twenty-six and twenty-nine, and they are going to drop federally to twenty-one or twenty-two, whatever it is. The point I make is that - I don't have the exact figure -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: It has gone twenty-six, twenty-four, as announced, but I think Martin, in his financial statement before the election, indicated that we are going to move that further. I thought that was the announcement - whatever it is, anyway.

The question I am asking is - what is in effect today, what we are passing today, we are basically divorcing it from the federal one and locking the equivalent percentages of our tax now. There were three rates federally, before the changes, just in the recent past: seventeen, twenty-six, and twenty-nine. We were 69 per cent of that and now we have dropped it to 62 per cent. Now we are going to 55 per cent of that; but the rate that is here now, I understand, is 62 per cent of the federal rate, which means that when we drop it to 55 per cent we are going to be separated; so we are putting the equivalent there at that time.

This figure that we are divorcing here now is at the sixty-two basic bracket, which means the decreases which are going to come federally over the next year, we are not going to get the benefits from that reduced federal announcement because we are separating it now before the federal announcement kicks in. So, the millions of dollars are saved there now and the Province will not lose $12 million like they lost last year when the federal government reduced theirs and we were linked to it.

I do not disagree with separating it from the federal tax. I think our Province should be able to make our own announcements on taxation, independent of the federal government. If the federal rate goes up, which it is unlikely to do, ours will go up. The point I am making is that you are locking it in now at a point equivalent to the current federal tax today, and when the next federal rate kicks in we are not going to reap any benefits. The Province is not going to have its taxes reduced at a lower per cent to kick in with the federal tax. That is my understanding of it.

MADAM CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

To clarify what we are doing in this bill today, it does not, in any way, affect our tax payable or the taxes at the 62 per cent rate that we announced for 2000. What it means is that, effective January 1, 2001, we will be going it alone so that our tax rate, on a provincial personal income tax basis, will bear no relation to what the federal rate is. It does not matter what happens to the federal rate. After January 1, 2001, there will be no relationship between their rate and our rate.

I think what the hon. member is suggesting is that if the feds were to bring in additional tax reductions, as I think they have announced, over a period of time, we will not get the additional incremental decrease in tax that would otherwise accrue; but, the same thing applies on the other side of the coin. If the federal government were to raise their rates of tax at any point in time, we would not incur the extra tax burden provincially that the federal rate would bring upon us. We are not going to, in the future, either benefit or be disadvantaged by anything that the feds do with respect to setting their federal personal tax rates.

I think it is pretty simple, really; it is pretty straightforward. We are on our own tax regime, based on our own rates, and the feds rate going up or down will not, in and of itself, affect the provincial personal income tax rate, but we will get the value of whatever federal reduction, of course, is passed along, because obviously that just reduces the federal tax payable separate and apart from any consideration of provincial tax.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am quite clear on what the minister is saying. That is not my question. We are separated from the federal tax, we have a per cent. I am sure the minister knows what I am saying. He is just trying - I will use a specific example for the minister. Today the lowest tax bracket federally is 17 per cent. If we took our current provincial rate and somebody filed their income tax today, with all their income, in the lowest bracket of 17 per cent, their tax would be at a provincial rate of 62 per cent of that. That is the lowest tax bracket; 62 per cent of 17 per cent comes to 10.57 per cent as indicated here, basically, in this bill; but our rate on January 1 becomes 55 per cent. Fifty-five per cent of 17 per cent is only 9.38 per cent, which means - the difference now - we are going to be paying 1.19 per cent of our income now in taxes if the bill is enacted. We are not getting the benefit. You are converting the rate at the current rate, not at the 55 per cent we are going to.

I would assume, in the next tax year, there will be a following change to allow that per cent then to roll down to 9.38 per cent, in line with the 55 per cent. If it goes to 49 per cent of the lowest federal bracket of 17 per cent, we will get that equivalent then, which is 49 per cent of 17 per cent, which is less than 9 per cent, about eight point four something. We should see a reduction in taxes because of these commitments.

Can the minister answer that? Why is the bill showing 10.57 per cent? Why isn't it showing 9.38 per cent, if our taxes are dropping to 55 per cent on January 1? What is the date - I didn't see it here - that this bill is going to be enacted? Is there a specific date? I didn't see that then.

MR. MATTHEWS: January 1, 2001 is the effective date.

MR. SULLIVAN: January 1, 2001. Effective January 1, 2001 we are on a 55 per cent tax? Is that correct?

MR. MATTHEWS: Effective rate, yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Technically we will be 55 per cent. So, why don't we take 55 per cent of 17 per cent, which is 9.38 per cent? Why are we locking it in at 10.57 per cent? We are not getting the benefits of a reduced rate at that time. Why isn't it adjusted accordingly?

MR. MATTHEWS: The rates that we have announced in this bill will be the absolute rates based on taxable provincial income or gross taxable income without any reference to the federal rate.

The member is right if he is suggesting that any adjustment downward after this year to the federal rate will not be picked up incrementally on top of what we are announcing here.

MR. SULLIVAN: We are not going to get that benefit?

MR. MATTHEWS: Right.

MR. SULLIVAN: On top of that, the question I am asking - forget that. We are bringing it in now to cut off any reduction in federal rate; because if we kept our per cent as a per cent of federal, when the federal goes down we are going to lose all these extra revenues that are going to go back into the pockets of consumers. The Province won't have it as revenue. Bringing this in now cuts that off and you don't lose any more money like the $12 million you lost; when the feds give a break the provinces get a break too. That is going to be gone, so you get ahead of the game. We don't get the benefits on that, number one, but that is not my question. That might be a rationale for bringing it in now.

My question is: On January 1, technically you have committed to be 55 per cent of the federal rate. That was your commitment for January 1. Would that be correct? On January 1, 2001 you committed to drop the rate. It went from 69 per cent to 62 per cent, and on January 1, 2001 you are going to drop it to 55 per cent. Is that correct? That is the commitment.

The point I am making: On January 1, on income, if we didn't change it, we would pay in the lowest tax bracket 55 per cent - the rate in the lowest tax bracket federally; the feds would pay 17 per cent. Seventeen per cent is your federal tax in your lowest bracket. Now, we should on January 1 get 55 per cent. To get the same per cent, you get 55 per cent of 17 per cent, which is 9.38 per cent not 10.57 per cent. You are taking 62 per cent of 17 per cent, the lowest tax bracket, and you are putting it in here. Why isn't it 55 per cent of that? Why isn't it 9.38 per cent. In clause 7.(a) why do you have 10.7 per cent in there? Why don't you have 9.38 per cent there? Can you give me an answer?

MR. MATTHEWS: I am not sure what pencil calculations the hon. member honestly is doing over there. What this does is this: In October of 1998 we announced a tax reduction schedule from 69 per cent of federal rate to 62 per cent of federal rate to 55 per cent of federal rate to 49 per cent of federal rate in the third year. What this does for us is provide a direct conversion of the savings that would have accrued, based on what the federal rate was in 1998.

It is true that this year, in February of 2000, we could have done what Nova Scotia did. We could have clawed back the extra provincial break that would have come to the Province's taxpayers on a provincial basis as a result of the reduction of the federal rate. We did not do that. That is why this year, while we announced in October of 1998 a $30 million tax break this year on a provincial basis, the actual break turned out to be $42 million. That is why our total three-year program went from $175 million to $187 million.

The hon. member, I am sure, understands that come January 1 we have completely de-linked and regardless of what the federal rate is on January 1, 2001, or any time beyond that, whether it goes up or whether it comes down, it will have no impact upon the rate of provincial tax payed. The rate will be the rate that you see here at 10.5 per cent and going up to sixteen point -

MR. SULLIVAN: I understand that. You are missing the point.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I do not think I am missing the point. I think the point you are trying to make, if I understand the hon. member, is this: that we are not tracking the federal rates, that we are not picking up the incremental additional personal provincial tax break as a result of what the feds are doing.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is not it. I am past that. I have conceded that is your intent on bringing it in now, to get away from that. That is not my question.

My question is, now that you have decided to get away from the federal rate, consumers will not get the benefit of the federal reduction because we are going to divorce our tax from that. I accept that point. I agree with divorcing it from it. I do not necessarily agree with consumers losing the revenue.

The next question I am asking is, why you are separating it, and you have to separate it at a certain point in time. When you separate your tax, you have to separate it on a certain level that you have to lock in at. I am saying that the level you have locked in and separated it at is 62 per cent of the federal rate. That is what 10.57 per cent comes to, 62 per cent of that federal rate at that low bracket. Why are you not locking it in at 55 per cent as you promised to do in January of 2001?

I will explain it mathematically is you want it worked out. If you took it right now, 17 per cent is the lowest federal rate. When you file your income tax in 1999 or 2000, when you calculated your provincial tax in the lower bracket - they usually give you a figure - it was 62 per cent of the federal tax you paid. Or you could work it on a rate basis and say 62 per cent of 17 per cent is 10.57 per cent. What the Province is doing is locking in at 62 per cent. Why are you not taking the same value of 17 per cent and say, we promised the equivalent of the 55 per cent in January. Let us take 55 per cent of that 17 per cent and that comes to 9.38 per cent. Why don't we say that the lowest bracket is 9.738 per cent now? Because you are giving us, in January, under this tax structure, a tax rate that is equivalent to 7 per cent higher and we are not being the beneficiaries of that 7 per cent reduction, if that is the case.

I would like an explanation of why that is locked in at 62 per cent now. Are you assuming that for the last tax year you are locking in - if it is going to become effective in January, why are the percentages not related to your commitment in January? I do not see that being done there. That is not even looking at the other two brackets. I took the lowest bracket which is a little less complicated because it is standard, it hasn't changed and it is not sliding federally. They are dropping the upper brackets, but I think they are leaving the lower bracket the same federally, so that is why I use that as an example.

If you can answer that question - nothing to do with the increments, none of that. Why are you locking in at that per cent instead of 9.38?

MR. MATTHEWS: If I understand the hon. member - I think I understand what he is trying to get at - the simple answer is that we have benchmarked based on what the rates were in 1998 when we announced this reduction program. We benchmarked at the federal rate as it was when we announced this program back in 1988. While this year we did not clawback the $12 million incremental income, as some of the provinces did do, we let that flow through - but the 10.57 per cent next year is the equivalent of 55 per cent of federal tax next year, but benchmarking it at the point that we announced the tax reduction program.

MR. SULLIVAN: The 10.57 per cent will not be an equivalent of 55 per cent of federal tax next year. It is not equivalent -

MR. MATTHEWS: Not next year, but we benchmarked it against when we announced the tax reduction plan.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is right. It is not equivalent to 55 per cent of federal tax right now in the year 2000. It is equivalent to 62 per cent of the federal tax in this year. In a sense, what you are doing with numbers is using numbers now to get back what you lost under incremental changes by federal government. You are going back to what it was before and we are not getting the benefit for the provincial taxes; because hear what we are saying: Because the feds are giving us breaks now we are going to go back and we are going to take it.

MR. MATTHEWS: I understand.

MR. SULLIVAN: If you take 62 per cent of 17 it comes to around 10.57. You are locking it in at 62. So the taxpayers were promised a 55 per cent equivalent tax in January 1, 2001 and we are not getting it. The extra money is being used now. They lock it in at a higher rate and therefore we are not getting what we were promised at all.

Now we are saying we are going to base it on what it was federally two years ago. That is what you said. It is benchmarked at the1998 federal tax structure. Well, the federal tax structure right now, this year, the lowest bracket since I can remember - not back for this past several years to my knowledge. The lowest tax bracket, federally, is 17 per cent. For the last several years it has not changed. They are starting to reduce the middle and I think the upper was 29 per cent. I am not sure what it is locked in at now, but it was 26 per cent, then 24 per cent. I think, in the middle bracket, it is even going further down. That is when they went from the ten tax brackets to three tax brackets, in the late ‘80s, I think - I am not sure - or the early ‘90s, somewhere around there. They went from ten to three tax brackets.

What we are seeing here now is 10.57 per cent which is 62 per cent of what the federal rate is. Not only are we not getting incremental benefits, we are not even getting the 55 per cent benefits that we were promised.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. member is making a proposition here that sort of suggests that we are not delivering on the $175 million tax reduction strategy that we announced in October, 1998.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) get your cut of that delivery.

MR. MATTHEWS: What we announced, Mr. Chairman, was this: That we would pass along over three years - without regard to what the federal tax rate might or might not do, we said we would pass along to the people of the Province $175 million cumulative over three years in tax reductions. We did not say at the time: now if the federal rate goes down two or three more percentage points we are going to add to the $175 million. We said that what we are doing here today is saving whole the tax reduction strategy that we announced in 1998. The $12 million extra was sort of a one time windfall, additional savings, that the provincial taxpayers got this year on the backs, if you like, of the provincial treasury.

The fact of the matter is that we benchmarked our 62 per cent, 55 per cent, and 49 per cent announcement against what the federal rates were then. We said that would come to $175 million, and it is actually coming to $187 million because this year we allowed the extra $12 million, as a result of the federal reduction, to flow through to the taxpayers of the Province. If the hon. member is suggesting that we should have said, back in 1998 when we made the announcement - I understand him making the proposition - that we are going to go to 55 per cent of whatever the federal rate is, and 49 per cent of whatever rate is on those dates, then we would have been announcing a tax reduction strategy that may have been more than $175 million or may have been less than $175 million because it would have been tied to the federal rate. What we have said is: we are going to give you back 175 million of pure dollars, greenbacks. That is what we are keeping in place and that is what this reflects.

The hon. member is right, he understands I am sure, that by de-linking from the federal rate, extra tax breaks on a provincial basis will not be accomplished. On the other hand, if the federal rate goes up, additional tax burden will not be imposed as a result of what we are doing here.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just have a couple of final comments. I am not going to prolong it any further, but I will make this point. It was the minister that used the reductions, and the Premier I think at the time, of 55 per cent and 49 per cent and so on. If you want to talk about a dollar value, that is one point, but the point I am making here is that the percentage is not 55 per cent. If you want to talk dollar value in savings, yes, I can talk dollar values, but it is not 55 per cent. The per cent that we see here today in clause 7( a) of this bill is 62 per cent of the federal tax rate at that bracket there. You can call it what dollars you like. The minister used the figures first, 55 per cent and 49 per cent; I did not use them.

The Premier at the time, as I recall - was that mentioned in a budget? I am not sure. Or the Premier made a statement in the House, I believe it was, a Ministerial Statement or whatever.

AN HON. MEMBER: One like I made the other day, but mine was too long.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. The Premier pointed to this. We are going to be giving people down to 49 per cent over the next three years, and 55 per cent. It is not factual that we are getting that per cent, at all. You might get a certain dollar value to give people. I am not going to debate that aspect, but I am saying the per cent in here is not 55 per cent. It does not state here that it is, but the minister indicated that. It is not, it is 62 per cent of the current federal rate. I want to make that clear. Technically, we are not getting a percentage break. If there is a dollar break in there or the equivalent, yes, it is the right way to go.

The gist of the legislation, to separate the rate, I agree with. I think we should be able to determine our own taxation. We should not have someone standing up in Ottawa, in the House of Commons, and making statements on our taxation that impact on us either positively or negatively. If they want to increase a rate, tell us. If we want to decrease it, let us do it.

I agree with the principle of this bill. I do not agree with the manner in which it was portrayed, that we are now down to 55 per cent and 49 per cent when we are actually not down to that. These figures do not bear that out. That is the point I wanted to make.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, we have had a very lively debate on what all this translates into in terms of savings for the taxpayers of the Province, Mr. Speaker. I would just conclude and move second reading of this by again reiterating, and again restating, that the absolute dollars that we committed to pass along in absolute tax savings to the people of the Province in 1998, we have saved that tax reduction schedule in absolute dollar terms whole as a result of what we are doing here. I do appreciate the support, in the meantime, of the hon. members on the other side for the basic principle of the bill which is the de-linking of our system from the federal tax system.

Resolution

That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of taxes on income.

On motion, resolution carried.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Income Tax." (Bill 29)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the House that we do clause by clause reading or do them inclusively.

We shall do them inclusively.

On motion, clauses 1 through 95, carried.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 4, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Motion 4, Bill 28.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Bill 28 is a bill to authorize the raising of money by way of loans by the Province. We have in fact floated a new series of loans this year totaling $200 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) Sinking Fund.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, I say to the hon. member, that this has nothing to do with the Sinking Fund. It is separate and apart from the Sinking Fund. I hope the hon. member knows the difference in raising a bond issue of $200 million and operating a sinking fund, and what the functions of a sinking fund are. I would not want to have to go through another half hour of explaining to the hon. member the difference between a sinking fund and a bond issue, because there is a fundamental difference.

The basic requirement that is being met in Bill 28, Mr. Chairman, is to approve the $200 million borrowing program that we entered into this year, as a Province, just recently as a matter of fact. What we did was we borrowed $200 million to pay off some debts that have come due, roll over some loans that we had that had matured, and to meet the other fiscal requirements of the Province as outlined in our Budget. Unless the hon. member wants a separate discussion with respect to operation of sinking funds, I would suggest -

MR. SULLIVAN: Are we on Bill 28 now?

MR. MATTHEWS: I am talking about Bill 28.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give us an explanation of a sinking fund.

MR. MATTHEWS: I do not want to get into a lesson on sinking funds when I am talking about -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, it allows us to do that, but the real purpose of this bill is to retire some debt, repay and renew or refund the securities that were previously issued under the act.

MR. SULLIVAN: Delete the clause referring to the sinking fund.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, we do not need to delete it because there may be some interaction between the borrowing that we undertook and the functioning of our sinking funds as a Province.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Bill 28, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loans By The Province. This side of the House of Assembly; right again, as per usual.

Last year, when the Minister of Finance talked about balancing the Budget and taking $116,004,000 to put into the Budget -

AN HON. MEMBER: Right again.

MR. J. BYRNE: Ah, ha! That is what they did, and now we are borrowing $200 million to pay back to the Sinking Fund the money they took out to balance the Budget. If you had not taken out that $116 million last year out of the Sinking Fund, there would have been $150,695,000 deficit, not the $34,691,000 that they said. So here we are nine months later, right again; the government wrong again, going out and borrowing $200 million to help pay the bills that they said they were going to be balancing the budget with last year. That is the bottom line on this, I say to the Minister of Finance.

Now, here he talks about: the bill authorizes the government to borrow $200 million for the Consolidated Revenue Fund to cover the deficit between provincial revenues and expenditures. With respect to the provincial revenues and expenditures, I would to ask the minister this: At the end of the year, where are we now? Are we on target with respect to expenditures? How much money have we spent with respect to the different departments? Are we going to be over this year? The figure that you quoted last year, a $34 million deficit - has the Minister of Finance, Treasury Board, the Premier of the Province directed the various departments to cut their budgets this year, this current year now? How much are they supposed to cut on this current fiscal year, ended March 31, 2001?

I remember putting out a release with respect to the Western Hospital Corporation to come clean with respect to the cuts. Finally, during the federal election, they were forced into it by the public to come out and say: Yes, you are right. The Member for Ferryland, the critic for Health was right. I was right. They were talking about bed closures, letting nurses go within the system. The Member for Ferryland got up in this House the other day and asked a question with respect to other health care corporations in the Province: How much have they been directed to cut? The Minister for Health stood in the media and said: It was not true, that they were not asked; that they were not directed. Then a report comes out and says: Yes, we were. We have to cut sixty-something positions; we have to close forty-something beds, or the reverse of that. Now he is looking for another $200 million.

I would like to know how much the departments have been asked to cut out of their current budgets to try and keep on line with what the Minister of Finance projected last year. Now we see $200 million being borrowed; looking for approval for another $200 million. Shame, I say to the Minister of Finance. Shame on you!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: There you go, we have the Minister of Health on the other side of the House asking the Minister of Finance to come clean. Now, what does that tell you?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I do believe that the Minister of Finance put out a financial statement recently saying that they were on target. If you are on target, why would you want to borrow another $200 million, I say to the Minister of Finance? Another example of saying one thing-doing another. The hallmark of this Administration: saying one thing-doing another.

I would like to ask him: How much will be borrowed for the Sinking Fund, and what the real deficit for the Province will be this year? How much of this $200 million is actually going in to replace the $116 million you took last year from the Sinking Fund to balance the budget? When he gets on his feet, he can respond to that. I think he can remember it. He made a few notes, mental notes.

MR. BARRETT: But he does not have a good memory.

MR. J. BYRNE: He doesn't have a good memory? Now the Member for Bellevue, who is looking to become a minister on that side of the House, just said to the Minister of Finance, that the Minister of Finance does not have a good memory. Maybe that is why the minister is looking for $200 million, because when he sat down to put the budget together with his people he could not recall one amount of money from one moment to the next. Two hundred million dollars, nine months into it. Shame!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's only pocket change for him.

MR. J. BYRNE: Is that right?

Instead of going out and giving a financial statement to say that everything is on target, I would like for the Minister of Finance to give the real figures of what is going on within the various departments of Newfoundland and Labrador, the various departments on that side of the House, and the ministers who have been asked to cut within their departments.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, what are you supposed to do? You have ministers on the other side of the House saying they were not asked. I have been told that before, that the health care corporations were not asked to cut their budgets. But, it came out, and the proof was in the pudding, that in actual fact they were directed to cut. I would say that if there are any who have not been asked, they are going to be asked.

I would like to ask the minister: Will the government bring the expenditures in on target this year?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: They will. The minister says they will. This is December 7 and the minister says they will bring the expenditures in on target. Time will tell. We are looking for $200 million today to address certain concerns within the government; eight months into the budget.

I would like to ask the minister: Has various government departments been asked to cut expenditures in order to avoid overruns or to stay within the budget itself? If any department has been asked to cut, slim down, or trim down, let us know what departments, and by how much, I say to the minister?

The other one, as I mentioned earlier: How much have the hospital boards been asked to cut? All of the hospital boards: St. John's, Western, the Peninsula Health Care Corporation, whatever. I would like to know how much they have been asked to cut, and to what extent do they have to go to make the cuts they have been asked to address to keep the minister's predictions online with respect to this fiscal year end.

Mr. Chairman, that is all I have to say on this piece of legislation, at this point in time.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I need to respond to the hon. member, my critic for Finance on the other side of the House, because when he rises in the House he starts to pontificate and starts to lay out propositions that if you weren't listening clearly you would almost think he knew what he was talking about. You would almost take some of his assertions as factual in content, whereas, in actual fact what he is doing is musing out loud off the top of his head. He seems to muse so much out loud off the top of his head, I think it has created a permanent problem for him, because the musings off the top of his head has substantially decreased, and in some areas, eliminated the natural cover that he would otherwise probably still be able to retain.

The fact of the matter is that this bill provides authority for us to borrow $200 million to do, as is necessary in our budgetary exercise throughout the year, any of the four exercises that are laid out in this bill. Is it not necessarily saying that we are putting money into sinking funds, paying off debts, or putting money into the pooled pension plans. It is saying that in borrowing this $200 million we are restricted in our activity of expenditure to put the money in one of these four areas. I think that needs to be clear in everybody's mind.

To his question; I would be glad to answer his question as to whether or not we are on budget. He obviously wasn't listening closely to my statement on December 4 in the House when I said that we are, this year, on target in terms of the budget projections that we laid out in the Budget of March, 2000. I have not asked any department of government to reduce expenditures beyond what they were voted in the House of Assembly, in the budgetary process. I have said to the departments, and I think every finance minister, about this time of year, reminds the departments that we need to be sure - because as you get down toward the end of the year your resources begin to be depleted on a departmental basis - to note that they have to live within their budget as given to them in March. So, we have not asked any department to reduce budgetary expenditures. We have not asked health boards to reduce budgetary expenditures. We have said to the health boards, the hon. the Minister of Health -

MR. J. BYRNE: That's not true, and you know it.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, I listened to the hon. member in silence and I would expect the same courtesy.

The hon. the Minister of Health has said on a number of occasions, we have asked all of the health boards to bring forward a three-year plan so that they can live within budgetary projections. The health boards have not been clawed back one 10 cents of what we voted them in the Budget this year. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, if past history repeats itself this year we may have to find some extra money for our health boards beyond what we voted them in the Budget. It is has been that way for the last number of years because the ability to contain health care costs is not easily achieved and so the health boards may have to get a little more money but certainly they will not get less money than we budgeted in this year's Budget for them.

So, we will be on target, Mr. Chairman. We have not asked departments to reduce their budgetary expenditures. We have asked them to be prudent and frugal in terms of how they operate for the remainder of the year. As far as our health care boards are concerned, they have not seen one 10 cents of reduction against what we budgeted for them. On the contrary, I would suggest probably we may have to come up with a few dollars to help them in certain areas of overrun and expenditure.

I move second reading of the bill.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the raising from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the province the sum of $200,000,000 and the additional sum or sums of money that may be required to retire, repay, renew or refund securities issued under an Act of the province or that may be paid into the Newfoundland Government Sinking Fund."

On motion, resolution carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 5 inclusive carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed a resolution and a bill consequent thereto, without amendment, carried.

MR. LUSH: Motion 6, Bill 30.

CHAIR: Motion 6, Bill 30.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The bill that we are currently considering is An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. What this bill does is it seeks the approval of the House for certain loan guarantees that we have entered into, subsequent to the last bill of this nature coming forward. The bill itself is self-explanatory. We have had to, in the case of certain guarantees, renew them; guarantees that have been in place with respect to certain enterprises such as Torngat fisheries and the like, which are really renewals of existing loan guarantees.

The other loan guarantees that are referred to here are loan guarantees against Crown corporations, the Newfoundland and Labrador Education Investment Corporation, and against the Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage Corporation which has been set up to finance the Rooms project. We have had, in addition to that, to enter into a loan guarantee of $1.5 million against the Integrated Poultry Limited operations. That loan guarantee, of course, has been taken out, I believe, because that enterprise has been sold; successfully divested from the Province and taken over by private enterprise.

Mr. Chairman, basically this, as I said earlier, seeks to affirm loan guarantees that we put in place. The other one I would note there, in terms of the Crown corporation, is the Marble Mountain enterprise. We have had to continue to assist that organization by way of either putting in grants on a year-over-year basis, which is what we have done to some extent; but their financial requirements beyond what grants we are able to take care of has been accommodated by way of borrowings by the corporation at their bank and supported by the government by way of guarantee for their loans.

If there are any specific questions on any of these guarantees that have been put in place, that the hon. members would like to raise, I would be happy to answer them specifically, but in a general sense the bill is quite self-explanatory. Each of the guarantees is laid out there. Each of the organizations is identified and the purpose for the guarantee, I think, is self-explanatory.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will have a few words, I suppose, and a few questions with respect to this piece of legislation, Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act. The minister says it is to seek approval for certain loan guarantees and to renew ceratin other loans for various enterprises.

In looking at this, I say to the minister, and looking at the schedule here, with respect to the Canadian Imperial Venture Corporation, there is an amount of $500,000. The date of expiry was March of this year and it is extended to October 3. When the minister gets up to respond, would he tell us that the project has been completed, the money has been expended, and they will be looking for no more funds?

With the Marble Mountain Development Corporation going from $300,000 and substituting the amount of $500,000, why was that required, a $200,000 increase? Also, by striking out $500,000 and putting in $700,00, another $200,000, and by striking out the amount of $700,000 and substituting the amount of $1,100,000; that is another $400,000 or more. Those are a couple of questions.

Torngat Fish Producers Co-operative Society Limited is in the schedule with an amount of $1.5 million, and the expiry date is May 31, 2001; Torngat Fish Producers Co-operative Society Limited, $600,000. That is a total of $2.1 million. I would like the minister to address those amounts and give us some background on why that kind of money was required for that society, that group.

With respect to the Order in Council 2000-407 which approved a $75 million loan guarantee for the Newfoundland and Labrador Education Investment Corporation, which was to provide financing for the construction of new school infrastructure as well as repair and renovations of the existing facilities, I would like the minister to basically address that $75 million: what has been expended on school construction; how much has gone into repairs and renovations; how much remains of that $75 million. Is that $75 million a one-shot deal, basically, or is it going to be increased upon each year in the budget in future years?

I have just one comment on the $40 million loan guarantee for the Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage Culture Corporation, the Rooms, something that has been in the news a lot lately. Of course, the group were asking if the government would look at moving the site, changing the site, and I think you have made your decision: that you will not make any alterations or changes to the site itself. Again $40 million is a lot of money to go into one facility. I would just like to hear a few comments on that.

I say to the minister, that is all I have to say on this piece of legislation. I hope you got all of my points.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member referred to four or five of the guarantees here. Let me go down the bill and take them in order.

In terms of the Canadian Imperial Venture Corporation, that is a new guarantee that we put in place this year. As you know, the oil company that had the original rights to drill, to develop out there, have farmed out their interests to juniors. This was an accommodation in order to let them move forward with a further exploratory program which started last spring. I cannot tell you exactly where it is in terms of the development. I can tell you that I get updates every time there is a new development out there. I think the best I can say to the House is that there have been very positive results with respect to the testing up, if you like, of the reserve. There have been very positive results in terms of trying to determine whether or not the oil can be successfully brought out of the ground. This $500,000 guarantee that we have given them was simply insurance against the guarantees that they had to give to the company which had the original interest in this property in the event that there was an environmental problem created if they had to cap off a well and clean up, and couldn't do it within their projected business plan.

The information I have is that is probably not going to be the circumstance, that we will not be called upon to pay out any money under our guarantees, so it was really an insurance against the junior companies that acquired the rights from the original holders of the acreage.

In terms of the $75 million for the Newfoundland and Labrador Education Investment Corporation, we announced a $125 million program of new school construction and major retrofits of some of the facilities that were open.

The hon. member is aware of some of the money that was spent in his own district in terms of new school facilities. What I would offer to the hon. member is this: as opposed to trying to identify - because I do not know, off the top of my head, how much has gone into renovations as opposed to new construction - I will undertake to get that information for him. I know that $12 million of the $125 million was for maintenance, for air quality issues, and for the replacing of windows, roofs, doors and carpets where it was necessary.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: How much of it is left? I wouldn't think very much of it is left. I think we have expended most of that money. We would probably need more if were to meet all of the needs that are out there; but $12 million of the $125 million did go to that and $75 million of the $125 million is being provided through this corporation.

I cannot say too much to the Rooms project other than while he may question the appropriateness of the expenditure, as a government I can tell you that we believe it is one of the most important strategic investments we have decided to make on behalf of the Province in recent memory. It will preserve out archives, it will preserve our heritage in terms of art, and it will preserve, in fact, a lot of the things that allegedly will be destroyed as a result of building it on the Fort Townsend site.

I think there were the archivists, there were the archeologists, and there were the artists who all had an interest in this project and who were all represented on the committee that identified the scope of the project and also identified the best location for it. We still believe that we have taken the best advice from the three primary stakeholders who are going to be involved in this project in terms of its location and in terms of its size.

With respect to Marble Mountain, I acknowledge that the loan guarantee had to be increased three times. Simply put, and unfortunately with regret to some extent, I acknowledge that it is as a result of the extra budgetary requirements that they have had placed upon them because of poor ski seasons, a decrease in customer revenue, and increase in costs at the hill. We are involved today, as we speak , in some very sensitive issues with respect to Marble: the labour negotiations. The choices we have with respect to Marble is to either try and keep it going and create the best possible levels of efficiencies we can out there and keep it going with government subsidization, or else close down Marble Mountain because it is losing money year over year and accept whatever economic consequences it would bring to the area.

At this point, my position of being responsible for Marble Mountain is that I am committed to try to keep Marble Mountain going with the lowest level of government assistance that is possible, but to keep it operating until such time as we can find a private sector solution, which is ultimately the answer to the Marble Mountain enterprise.

None of us want to see Marble Mountain closed, so our choices are to either close it down or continue to help it financially. We have chosen to take the latter route and this year the $1.1 million in guarantees is reflective of our financial support commitment to the organization.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say a few words about Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. I had to look twice there; I wasn't sure my glasses were working.

We have seen relatively few additions and changes to this Loan and Guarantee Act in the last number of years, consistent with government's practice not to get too involved in this type of thing. I do not a problem with any of the additions here. The minister mentioned the Ernst & Young loan guarantee in the amount of $5 million is being extend for another year to accommodate the potential receivership costs of liquidation. I was just wondering whether the minister anticipates any cost or loses to the Province under that loan guarantee to Ernst & Young Inc., on the receivership for Integrated Poultry Limited. Does he anticipate that being a cost to the Province, or is that going to look after itself at the expiry date?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: To the best of my knowledge, and I can double-check it for the hon. member, while we put the $5 million guarantee in place against the operations of the receiver, Ernst & Young, it is my understanding that this loan guarantee has not had to be realized upon and has in effect already been taken out as a result of the successful privatization of that operation.

Beyond what we put into that Integrated Poultry operation over the past twenty years, this $1.5 million guarantee did not add anything by way of additional investment in the enterprise. The $1.5 million guarantee was put there in the event that things did not go as the divestiture plan had contemplated when it was embarked upon and this guarantee, I understand, has now been taken out without any cost to the Province.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do note that the guarantee has in fact expired as of September 30, and the same with the Canadian Imperial Venture Corporation.

MR. MATTHEWS: That one is still in place, Jack.

MR. HARRIS: It is still in place? The expiry date listed there is October 3, 2000.

MR. MATTHEWS: We extended it.

MR. HARRIS: It is going to be extended, is it?

MR. MATTHEWS: I think we have, yes. I will double-check.

MR. HARRIS: Would you not add that to the legislation now, if the intention is to extend it, or is that something you would report on in the subsequent year?

MR. MATTHEWS: The original guarantee was for that date. As far as I know, we are still carrying that guarantee.

MR. HARRIS: You are able to extend it without legislative approval?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Very good.

I just want to say a few words about that particular operation, Canadian Imperial Venture Corp., and what has the potential of being an important economic activity in the western part of the Province. I know that in additional to this guarantee and the raising of funds on the stock exchange, I noted recently that company raised, through a private placement, additional funds to continue its development activities of their particular oil well on the West Coast.

In discussing this whole area, I think it is interesting to note that we have a situation on the West Coast, if this company and others that are in effect minor players in the offshore magnitude of things are successful, I think we are going to see, and we can see, a tremendous amount of economic activity spinoff from that of money principally spent in the Province for goods and services. In fact, in discussions recently with some of the principals involved in that Western Newfoundland oil play, it is pretty interesting, the level of oil recovery that is needed in order to generate a profit is very low. We look at the offshore; if you do not have 50,000, 100,000, or 150,000 barrels a day, you cannot make money.

Out in Western Canada, in Alberta, with a mature reservoir system and a mature basin, there are little oil wells on fields that are profitable at the rate of thirty or forty or fifty barrels a day. This is possible, of course, because they are all strung together and the oil is collected and sent to refineries.

In fact, in the Western Newfoundland oil exploration and development, some of these oil wells, if they can get into production, can make money. With 150, 250 or 300 barrels a day they can actually make a profit. If that is the case, Madam Chair, it is pretty clear that the cost of development is rather low, and with the kind of equipment that you see out in Western Canada, in terms of oil wells and rigs and development activity, there could be attracted an awful lot of, what I would call small money, in the oil industry. You do not need to be Mobile Oil, Exxon Corporation, Petro-Canada or Husky to be involved in these plays.

In fact, in this case and a couple of other cases on the West Coast of Newfoundland, Newfoundland entrepreneurs and investors are involved as principals in this development. In fact, Madam Chair, the development that is being conducted now by Canadian Imperial Ventures Corporation is one which, although it looked like it had potential, it was small potatoes for the major owner. They had a whole series of projects to choose from in their holdings around the world, either here in Western Canada or other parts of the world. This would not be the kind of level of development that they would pursue. So choices are made and smaller companies, with a different level of operation, with a focus on local development, could, in fact, take over a particular discovery, a particular operation, and develop it and make money; because their expectation of the level of investment and profit required to make it viable and just the sheer scope of their work was much less, on a much lower scale.

If it were possible, Madam Chair, over the next five or ten years to see a number of success stories like, I think, we are all hopeful that this company and others on the West Coast of Newfoundland would be. We have the potential for another type of oil industry with a lot more local investment and a lot more activity and a significant boost to the diversification of the economy of Western Newfoundland and also to provide much need jobs and much needed economic activity, because the spin-off activity for this level of exploration is considerable. To some extent, it will create, per dollar of investment, more economic activity on the ground in Western Newfoundland then the oil play in the offshore does because of its considerably higher capital investment in equipment and facilities that are built elsewhere outside of the Province. So we can see more than a ray of hope, I say Madam Chair, in fact something that we hope will be realized very shortly to the extent of a fully operational oil well and oil development on the West Coast of the Province.

So I am encouraged by what I hear. Of course, I do not know much of the detail and much of the activity out there is private and proprietary knowledge of the company and of the players involved. It is certainly encouraging to see, 100 years after people knew that there was oil there on the West Coast of Newfoundland, some level of development that we hope will be successful for the people engaged in the activity, because if they are successful then, of course, more investors will be drawn to explore, develop, and increase the potential for this industry which we all hope will provide much needed revenue to the local economy, much needed jobs, and much needed economic activity.

Madam Chair, I did want to take the opportunity to say these few words in support of the risk taking that is going on, in support of the, I guess, true entrepreneurial activity and spirit that is being seen in the development of this Western Newfoundland oil play that we hope will be successful.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MR. MATTHEWS: Just to reiterate and to clarify the loan guarantee of $1.5 million to Ernst & Young, vis-à-vis IPL. The guarantee was not drawn down on because the receiver had sufficient funds coming out of the privatization initiative and they did not need them.

With respect to the venture capital, the Canadian Imperial Venture Corporation capital guarantee, that guarantee has, in fact, expired as of October 31. That is why it has not been extended. I just was double checking my notes on that.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Resolution

That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations.

On motion, resolution carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957." (Bill 30).

On motion, clauses 1 through 2, carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, I move the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that they have adopted certain resolutions and recommend that Bills 13, 29, 28, and 30 be introduced to give effect to the same.

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

On motion, resolutions read a first and second time.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce the following bills:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957." (Bill 13)

A bill, "An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province." (Bill 28)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Income Tax." (Bill 29)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957." (Bill 30)

On motion, Bills 13, 28, 29 and 30 read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and their titles be as on the Order Paper.

MR. LUSH: Order 8, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 8, second reading of, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act." (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is really a very progressive and very important amendment to the Labour Standards Act. This amendment to the Labour Standards Act is as a result of the federal legislation that was introduced in early in 1999. What it does is it ensures that workers are able to avail of the extended employment insurance benefits scheduled to take place effective December 31, 2000. This particular amendment will apply to maternity and also for people who are adopting. Without this amendment the worker would not be guaranteed that these particular benefits would be extended for a full one-year period. It would be up the consent of the employer to do so, but this legislation ensures that the worker can receive up to fifty-two weeks and be protected without loss of job, and that is very important.

Earlier this year when the Labour Standards Review Committee did their report for government this was one of the particular amendments that they recommended, along with others. This particular one is being introduced now so that the benefits can take place as the result of December 31, 2000.

Mr. Speaker, we do have the support of the Employers' Council, the Federation of Independent Businesses, and also the support of the Federation of Labour in this. This move will no doubt enhance early childhood development by providing more time at home for the parents. As I said, 96 per cent of those receiving parental benefits are women. So this is a great amendment to the Labour Standards Act and I look forward to getting the support of my colleagues on both sides of the House, so this can happen and take effect December 31, 2000, this year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to have the opportunity to make a few comments on Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act. I am certainly not surprised, in no way, shape or form, to hear the hon. minister say that this is a progressive piece of legislation. Coming from his Progressive Conservative background, I am not surprised. It is great to see another progressive piece of legislation come before the House, and this minister has brought several pieces of legislation to the House that have been progressive pieces of legislation. Again, I say, we are not surprised on this side of the House because of his Progressive Conservative background, that he is bringing these piece of legislation to the House.

This piece of legislative is something, I guess, that is taking a lot of time in our society to evolve but isn't it great that we have come this far? Isn't it great that we have reached a time in our society when we are in a position to assist women, in most cases here - as the minister alluded to, 96 per cent of people who receive these benefits are women - when we have reached a position in our society when we can reach out, as a government, and assist women who now will not be concerned if they decide to have more children. They will not be concerned if they have to leave their place of employment - whether it be within government, whether it be within the private sector - to go home and have a child, and spend some quality time with that child at a very precious time, the beginning of one's life; and that the lady - in most cases here, as we said, 96 per cent - would not be returning to find that her job has been lost or replaced with someone else. Certainly, it is an opportunity to do that.

It is great to see that we have - as the minister alluded to also - the Federation of Labour, the Federation of Independent Businesses, and the Employers' Council who support this piece of legislation. I would find it hard to believe that anybody involved in any way, shape, or form in society today would be against this piece of legislation.

Early childhood development is certainly a very important part of a parent's role. As a parent, myself, it is very important that we get the opportunity to spend as much time as we can with our children, especially in that first year, that very important year of developing, when the bonding of a child to his parents begins. It is very important that we have an opportunity there to now be able to give that right and opportunity to many women throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This side of the House fully endorses this piece of legislation and we look forward to this hon. minister bringing forward more progressive pieces of legislation to the floor of this House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak briefly in support of the legislation now before the House, Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act. This is probably the first significant change in the maternity benefits legislation this country has seen in many years. It is significant because it allows for protection for employment for the equivalent of a year of maternity, which is a significant change from the existing protection of seventeen weeks which was consistent with the UI benefits.

The federal government, in respond to pressures for many years, particularly from the women's movement has extended the maternity leave and parental leave benefits for parents of a new child or an adopted child to one year, and that one year extension makes a significant difference. This is something that has been fought for, for many years by the women's movement, by Federations of Labour, the Canadian Labour of Congress and groups throughout the country because of the understanding of the need and the desire of many parents to spend much more time with a new born than was previously permitted economically under the employment insurance act, as it was before.

It is a very significant change because most women now, most families, need two incomes to achieve an adequate standard of living in this country. Particularly, the rise of single parent family's has also raised the importance of economic security for parents of young children and newborns to provide for their children an economic way of life. It is a very significant change and it is significant that this protection for maternity benefits is extended in our Labour Standards Act.

I think it is notable that we often talk about the difference between Canada and the United States in terms of medicare, but the United States has no protection for employment. No federal laws in the United States protect women's jobs, who have a right to return to work after maternity benefits. There are some States who do that, but not all. There is no national standards in the United States for this particular type of protection. So, it is another area where we, in Canada, and here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador regard issues involving the protection of family, the social rules that go along with a different type of society and a different recognition of different values in our society. We have national employment standards through the Unemployment Insurance Program and we have standards, such as are obtained in the Labour Standards Act here, throughout the country, to have a uniform standard of protection for return to employment from maternity benefits.

I am a little bit disappointed that the minister was unable to respond to some of the other recommendations in the report. I know there will be time in the spring to do that. Perhaps, the minister, when he closes the debate today, can tell us what his plans are for that. I know that it is important to bring this matter in force for January 1, 2001, because that is when the federal laws kick in.

There are other aspects of labour standards that are in dire need of change. I mentioned particularly the issue of overtime pay. It is probably a surprise to many to discover - the understanding that most people would have is that overtime after a regular work week of forty hours or eight hours in a day, would be paid at time and a half. That is the expectation and understanding that this would be a minimum standard. In fact, when one looks carefully at the Labour Standards Act in the regulations there is a provision for time and a half pay after, I believe, it is forty-four hours in a week and eight hours in a particular day. But, and the big but is, that it is one-and-one-half times the minimum wage, not one-and-one-half times the salary that an individual is receiving. So if you are being paid at the rate of $8 an hour, you can work sixty hours a week straight time, you can work seventy hours a week straight time and no provision is made for you getting time and a half unless you have a collective agreement or an employer who pays it voluntary or is part of a contract of employment.

So there are other aspects of the labour standards provision that are in dire need of reform. I think Mr. Jim Oakley, who chaired the review committee, pointed out quite strongly that we have to bring our labour standards up-to-date. That our act is from another era and must be modernized and must be improved. This is just one example of the number of areas.

While we certainly fully support the changes that this particular bill envisages to come into effect on January 1, to coincide with the changes in the employment insurance regulations and act. We look forward to a commitment by the minister to put into effect the other recommendations as soon as it is possible in the new year. I recognize we only have six days of legislative session and two days of private members' here before Christmas. Hopefully, when the dust settles on Christmas, and we get back after Boxing Day - when Christmas is over and we come back early in the new year and make some of these improvements to the Labour Standards Act so that people do not continue to be victimized, and I think that is the case.

The Labour Standards Act, let's face it, does not affect people who are in unionized employment, who have the power of collective bargaining to support them; it does not apply to professionals; it does not apply to teachers, to Members of the House of Assembly, or to many other people whose standard of employment, wages, and working conditions are significantly higher than those of the minimum standards.

Labour standards apply to those who do not have any bargaining power, who are at the lowest level of the workforce, who are either at entry level or who do not have the ability to organize collectively and have the economic force to increase their wages.

We do have a responsibility, as a Legislature, to ensure that the minimum standards for labour standards are satisfactory, are at a level concomitant with the dignity of labour, and do not allow people to be taken advantage of and exploited.

We have other examples of young people being called into work at a fast food operation, given fifteen minutes of work and sent home. That goes on all the time. They have the right to call in somebody, require them to come to work at 7:00 p.m. or 8:00 p.m. because they think they are going to need them, and then turn around and send them home half an hour later, with half an hour's pay. They may have had to spend half an hour getting to work and half an hour getting home, and they get half an hour's pay. That is not good enough. Young people of this Province are getting exploited as a result of that law.

We have to bring about those changes as quickly as we possibly can, and I urge the minister to give a commitment to this House today that that will be done as a priority order of business when the House resumes again. I would have hoped that the drafters of the people working in the Legislative Council could have gone further than the one clause in this bill, for this session of the House, or I had hoped that the minister would have moved faster to implement some of these recommendations that he has had since the report has been presented to him, I think a month ago or sometime in October. That would have been sufficient time to make more amendments that could have affected people, people's livelihood, and the conditions of work for people in this Province earlier than we can expect in the new year.

I would, despite that, ask the minister if he can make that commitment here today, that a priority order of business for the next session of the House of Assembly will be to see that the rest of the recommendations are presented to this House in the form of legislation for our review and early passage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour; if he speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the two speakers who have supported the amendment.

To address very, very quickly the comments made by the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, once the report was done by Mr. Oakley and presented to the department, what we did then was to take the report, give it back to the stakeholders for their perusal; that is the Federation of Labour - Independent Business - the Federation of Labour. We asked them to come back to us. We met with them at the department to get their views of what the report had said, and had dialogue back and forth with them. What we are doing now is analyzing their response to that particular report. It is my intention to bring these amendments to Cabinet so that we can bring it to the House of Assembly in the spring sitting.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 20)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 6, Mr. Speaker, Bill 26.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 6.

It is moved and seconded that a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be now read a second time.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not believe there is a whole lot more to be said on this amendment.

A couple of days ago, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's gave us a very good description of the amendments that are to take place in this particular bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: The debate was adjourned.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I thought that the hon. minister was introducing second reading.

MR. LUSH: No, the bill has been introduced.

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

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: As I said, Mr. Speaker, there was a very good description of the amendments to this particular bill a couple of days ago from the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's. He went on, I think, for about forty minutes explaining what the amendments were, and I think everybody got the gist of it.

I will very briefly just say that this is a very important amendment in terms of dealing with impaired driving in the Province. It is one more step that we need to take in dealing with that particular issue.

I close debate on second reading of this bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 26).

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

MR. LUSH: Order 12, Mr. Speaker, Bill 40,

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act to Amend The Services Charges Act." (Bill 40)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a good news bill. There are a few things I would like to mention in terms of the amendments themselves. The purpose of the bill is to exclude the condominium fees currently charged by the condominium registry from the Services Charges Act. By changing the fee from a value base to a unit base we will reduce the cost of the fee. Registration fees charged under the Condominium Act are based on the value of the condominium project and are such that they are set pursuant to the Services Charges Act.

The purpose of the Services Charges Act, which is administered by the Department of Finance, is to legislate fees charged by government which will be considered a tax. Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province in Canada that charges condominium registration fees based on the value of property.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. McLEAN: Well, we are taking care of it, we are starting to deal with it. All other provinces charge fees based on the number of units, and there is a vast difference in the amount of money that is involved. A survey of the other jurisdictions shows that condominium registration fees are a whole lot higher in this Province than in any other jurisdiction. I had a comparison with me that I will bring over when we debate this in Committee just to show you the difference.

The Department of Government Services and Lands will amend its condominium regulations to provide for changing the fee to a unit base and the minister will also then set the revised fees. That is basically what takes place in all other jurisdictions. The actual clause itself that will be repealed in the Services Charges Act will remove registration fees charged under the Condominium Act, and the method of assessing those fees has changed to those fees no longer to come under the purview of the Services Charges Act, but rather they well be addressed in regulations under the Condominium Act.

So that is the very simple process we have to go through in order for us to be able to change the situation of condominium fees that are extremely high now, and if we change this we can get them down to a standard that is set right across the country. We believe it will be a good news story for most everybody who deals with condominium development in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Just a quick word on Bill 40, An Act to Amend the Services Charges Act. We, on this side, basically support this piece of legislation. It is basically housekeeping with some positive aspects to it.

Just one quick note. I have often said in the House how sometimes we have rushed some legislation through the House, especially when we are coming close to the end of the sitting or around Christmastime and we make mistakes and omission and what have you. But, Mr. Speaker, it says here that this provision was inadvertently omitted from amendments stemming from the regulatory reform project. So, just to make the statement again, Mr. Speaker, that we should not be rushing, on occasion, to put legislation through the House of Assembly. It is late in the evening so I will save some comments on this piece of legislation for when we go into Committee.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands. If he speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Sorry you spoke so fast. I did not hear what the Member for Cape St. Francis was saying. We will deal with this in Committee. I will close debate on second reading of this particular bill, Bill 40.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 40)

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their tremendous diligence and cooperation today and I move that this House do adjourn until Monday at 1:30 p.m..

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.