December

4, 1996

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 46

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

Statements by Ministers

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when the Hibernia oil field begins its

production stage, oil from the platform will be shipped to a unit many of us

have come to know as the Transshipment Terminal. It is in this facility that oil

from Hibernia will be stored, until it is loaded onto tankers for shipment to

markets.

Mr. Speaker, the environmental assessment process is the

screen through which government analyses projects for their environmental

impacts. It begins with the registration of the project's documents with the

Department of Environment and Labour, and proceeds with a public review and a

thorough and multi-sectoral review by agencies from both Provincial and Federal

Governments.

The Transshipment Terminal Project was registered with my

Department in September of this year and the provincial environmental assessment

process proceeded subsequently.

Mr. Speaker, I have written to the proponents, joint venture

partners, Chevron Canada Resources Ltd., Mobil Oil Canada Properties, and

Petro-Canada, to inform them that an environmental impact statement will not be

required. This means, Mr. Speaker, that the project is released from further

assessment by the Province, and the proponent may proceed with the undertaking

as described in their registration documents subject to all applicable permits,

approvals, authorizations and relevant legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this project has been released from the

Province's environmental assessment process only after a comprehensive and

stringent review of the project. The proponent has volunteered to submit an

Environmental Protection Plan, and has also agreed to develop an Environmental

Effects Monitoring Program that will include the participation of groups from

government, academia and industry, and to submit the program to my department

for approval. We have also met directly with the proponent, Mr. Speaker, to

ensure that we are going to have a state-of-the-art protection plan for oil

spill response in case of any emergencies.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to also repeat that the project is

released from the Province's environmental assessment process only. The federal

environmental assessment requirements will be addressed through a Comprehensive

Study under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I did not have a chance to see the Ministerial Statement

prior to the House opening, but in listening closely, what I can assume is that

government has decided that they want the project to go ahead with the best

possible speed, with the greatest protection to the environment. It seems, in

releasing the proponents from an environmental assessment, on the one hand, they

have also provided for and see, as an initiative of government, as a priority,

to ensure that the greatest protection measures will be in place in the event

that there may be some significant or otherwise damage to the environment.

I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that it seems to be a statement

of intent, that the real details in terms of what government will demand from

the proponent, what will be included or not included from the protection plan

remains to be seen and I look forward to that information being tabled in the

House to give all members a greater degree of certainty that environmental

protection, along with development, is a concern of the government.

Thank you.

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

Vidi. Does he have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to inform the Members of

the House of Assembly that Amoco Canada Petroleum Company Ltd. has confirmed

that it will drill at least one well on the Grand Banks in 1997. It has now

contracted its rig. In May 1997, Amoco will commence drilling the West Bonne Bay

prospect, located fifteen kilometres northeast of the Terra Nova oilfield. The

drilling of this well will employ approximately 200 people for about three

months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: This well, Mr. Speaker, will be drilled on

land for which Amoco bid more than $90 million in work commitments in 1995. This

was the largest single bid for an individual land parcel in the Province's

history and still is. Obviously, Amoco, a major international player in the oil

industry, sees tremendous potential on these lands, and with success, will very

likely drill more than one well.

Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to welcome Amoco back to

the East Coast. Amoco, with Imperial Oil, was one of the original explorers on

the Grand Banks in the 1960s. They were one of the first companies to drill on

the Grand Banks at that time and now we welcome them back and wish them every

success.

Let me also say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe that the return

of Amoco, combined with the record high bids in the recent offshore land sales

on September 30, which totalled $125 million, signals a turning point in oil and

gas exploration on the Grand Banks.

Bob Erickson, Chairman and President of Amoco Canada is

quoted in yesterday's news release as saying, "The East Coast's ongoing

infrastructure activity, complemented by Newfoundland's royalty announcement

last June, provides better certainty for these types of exploration ventures."

With renewed exploration, I am confident, as minister, that

we will see the discovery and delineation of other major fields to follow on the

heels of Hibernia and Terra Nova.

Thank you.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me join with the minister

on behalf of my colleagues in the official Opposition to say we open arms, too,

with a huge welcome to Amoco -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: - to ensure that the success of the

Hibernia project and the spin offs that will come from that will ensure maximum

benefit, but I also say to the minister and to government: let us also renew our

commitment to ensure that greater technology transfer takes place within our oil

and gas industry, and as a result of greater technology transfer more

opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in terms of employment exist,

and let us learn from those mistakes that we made in our first project to

realize greater benefits for each and every person in this Province.

Thank you.

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

Vidi have leave?

No leave.

The Chair would like to take this opportunity to welcome to

the House today, a group of business people from Italy led by Meneguzzo Armando.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Social

Services. Would the minister confirm whether or not the following statements

that are found in the Strategic Social Plan consultation documents are accurate,

that the labour force will be drastically reduced. Seventy per cent of the

Province's labour force is between the ages of twenty and forty-four years, and

this part of the population is expected to decrease by about 95,000 people which

is close to 30 per cent by the year 2016, and the additional health care and

other costs associated with an aging population will have to be met by a smaller

population paying taxes, and a smaller population will result in reduced

transfer payments since these transfers are based partly on population size.

Will the minister confirm those statements that are on page 10 of the

consultation document?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If you are quoting from Page 10, and that was the book we

published then I would confirm that is what is in the book, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister if she will confirm if

these statements are accurate?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think, as you referred to that information in the book, it

is accurate. We are looking at a workforce that is declining, obviously, because

we have a larger group of elderly people who are beyond the years of work. In

any particular environment, or in any set of demographics, when you have an

older population they require increased health care needs. That is an obvious

statement to make and, as most of us know, the older people get the more likely

they will avail of health care services. If we have a growing elderly

population, and we have a shrinking mid-group working population, yes, there

will be a smaller percentage of people contributing to the tax base for the

health care needs of the Province, and that is one of the reasons why we have

reformed the health care system to try to address those needs, to try to shift

the health care of the community in a way that we can address the needs of an

aging population.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would now like to

ask a question of the Minister of Finance.

On Monday in the House the Member for Baie Verte asked the

Minister of Finance questions regarding the harmonized sales tax. The minister

responded that he expects a substantial period of growth two years from now in

this Province. He is counting on more people paying taxes, and an increase in

population to offset the harmonized sales tax revenues. I ask the minister: Do

you still stand by that statement which you made on Monday?

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

Simple mathematics would indicate to the hon. member that by

injecting another $105 million a year into the economy, that is approximately

.875 per cent of our provincial GDP in nominal terms, which is roughly $12

billion in total. That is additional monies that would not otherwise be in the

system. So year over year that will add to the growth that would otherwise not

be there.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would now like to ask the Premier if the Minister of Social

Services is advocating false doom and gloom to accommodate the elimination of

her social policy? Or is the Minister of Finance spinning numbers representing

substantial income and economic growth in order to sell a tax harmonization deal

that is bad for this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

is right; an hon. member is spreading false doom and gloom, but it is the Leader

of the Opposition who is doing so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

this week has been looking for contradiction, looking for tragedy, looking for

problems where none exist, has done it repeatedly. Yesterday the Leader of the

Opposition got up late in the question period and claimed that my brother had

met Mr. Fallon and that a secret deal had been worked out. Of course, all of

that has been denied by all of the parties involved. But for greater measure,

one of my staff spoke to both Mr. Fallon and to Mr. Terry Tobin yesterday. They

claim never to have met each other. I suspect his questions today have as much

validity as his questions yesterday: None whatsoever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must say, the

Premier's answers are very consistent. He is telling us he doesn't know, and

that is nothing new, I say. I ask the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board:

Does he believe the Retail Council of Canada is a reputable organization?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

can't have it both ways. In this hon. House when one stands up and makes an

accusation, as the Leader of the Opposition did yesterday, we assume it was a

serious accusation. It was said in the House. You either substantiate the

accusation or you withdraw if you are an hon. member. The Leader of the

Opposition's credibility in terms of putting so-called facts before this House

is much in question. I would ask him, as an hon. member, to withdraw today the

accusation made yesterday, given that it has been denied by everybody named in

it.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister

of Finance and Treasury Board: Does he believe the Retail Council of Canada is a

reputable organization?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the question is, is the

Leader of the Opposition a reputable questioner?

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board again if he believes that the Retail Council of

Canada is a reputable organization.

MR. TULK: The question is out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: We on this side of the House have an

obligation to answer questions, and we intend to answer those questions when

they are factually based, when they seek information. That is our obligation. We

will do so.

But I say again to the Leader of the Opposition, on any

number of occasions during this past week the Leader of the Opposition, Mr.

Speaker, has made statements which have proven to be absolutely false. In the

health care file, there have been claims that have turned out to be false, a

claim that an ambulance operator assisted in surgery. That has turned out to be

absolutely false. A claim that a meeting occurred between Mr. Fallon and a Mr.

Terry Tobin: That has turned out to be absolutely false. It is time for the

Leader of the Opposition to do his research, or have whoever's doing it do a

better job, or to come clean and apologize to those who have been maligned in

this House this week by this Leader, so-called, of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that we should wait

until after Question Period is over, but this is getting rather out of the

ordinary, I say.

I quote to the hon. Leader of the Opposition from

Section

409, subsection 8 of Beauchesne, "A question that has previously been answered

ought not to be asked again."

Section 410, subsection 9, "Questions should not

repeat questions already asked although this does not mean that other questions

on the same point are out of order." Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman just

asked the same question three times after they were answered and I suggest to

him that he is totally out of order in doing that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, yes, the Chair had made note that the

hon. member had repeated the question and was going to allow the member to ask a

supplementary but provided that supplementary was not the same question.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Finance told me in the House last week that

the harmonized sales tax would be deflationary, not inflationary. You added that

you were not aware of studies or substantial opinion which believed it was

inflationary. Now my question to the Minister of Finance is, not withstanding

the fact that only three provinces have signed onto this deal and that the

Retail Council of Canada has said that the cost of adopting taxing pricing with

only three provinces will exceed by many times the savings in harmonization,

will the minister remove this Province from this disastrous taxing initiative?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To start with there are four provinces that have adopted

harmonized sales tax. That was at first when it came in originally in 1991. But

I say to the hon. member that there is no substantial body of opinion which

suggests that the harmonized sales tax would be inflationary, quite the

opposite, the experience has shown that it would be deflationary and I don't

know which study the hon. member is questioning. I have received many reports on

this. I have reviewed the federal government's statistics which are by-partisan,

they were reviewed by and accumulated by his predecessors, they are reviewed by

our current government and the opinion is very uniform, Mr. Speaker, so I don't

know where the hon. member is drawing his information from or citing his

conclusions but in either event, they are economically unsound.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am drawing them from a letter given to the finance minister

dated November 29 of which I was sent a copy and showing a study done by

retailers. I ask the minister, has he seen this presentation by the Retail

Council of Canada and does he agree with what the Retail Council of Canada is

saying in this letter?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I have met with the retail

industry in this Province. I have met with and my colleagues in other provinces

have also met with them. There is concern in the retail industry that they will

have to bear the expense of changing their computer systems to allow for a

decrease of tax, and there is some concern expressed about the cost of doing

that. So I have said to the retail industry, on the one occasion that this issue

was raised with the Chamber of Commerce in this City and other places, that I

will give them a clear choice. If they are concerned about the cost of changing

their computer systems, then we will leave their tax rate at 20 per cent. Do you

know what, Mr. Speaker? I have not heard a single whisper back since.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a final supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the minister is stating that he is not aware of the Retail

Council of Canada's letter and implications. I ask him: Will he indicate that

they have stated that they will reduce the number of employees or increase the

price because of the harmonization with three provinces? Will the minister

confirm that?

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

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker, that is completely

ill-founded. I will say to the hon. member, if he truly believes that the retail

industry in this Province wants the current system to remain in place, then I

will make a deal with him. If he can bring to me a majority of the retailers in

this Province who want to maintain a current 20 per cent tax rate on the sale of

goods, with no GST input credits, or if they want a fully integrated tax system

with cascading, as is now in effect, and a 15 per cent tax rate, then I will do

exactly as he suggests. But I suggest to him that if he thinks for a minute that

the retail council in this or any other Province is in favour of a 20 per cent

tax rate or, further, that the people of this Province want a non-harmonized

sales tax, he is clearly and very sadly mistaken.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Government Services and Lands on a topic he is so proud of,

namely the sale of Crown lands.

The minister said, on November 26, that government had a 39

per cent response rate on commercial leases, not the 10 per cent to 15 per cent

he anticipated. Of course these businesses want their land, and it would be

silly to think otherwise, I say to the minister, but at what price? Does the

minister have any idea how much the government will collect in revenues from the

buy-out of these commercial leases?

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not have the figures with me here. I can certainly have

the figures for you tomorrow as to what we have collected to date, but I would

suggest to the hon. member that it was a very good program, as we stated last

week in the House, and I am certainly prepared to provide the figures tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

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

Mr. Minister, a 39 per cent response rate on commercial

leases means a 61 per cent non-response rate. Has the minister heard from any of

the 61 per cent? Has anyone expressed concern to him or his department that this

revenue grab came out of the blue at a very bad time and left the businesses

unprepared to purchase or finance the land on which they are situated? Have any

businesses expressed concern that the policy could jeopardize their operations?

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, if we heard from 39 per cent we did not hear from

the others at this particular time. I would suggest that nobody is hurting in

terms of the commercial properties. We are getting indications that the

commercial leaseholders are required to purchase by the banks when they are

mortgaging at any rate, and they are very interested in this particular program.

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

supplementary.

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

I say to the minister, I think you should listen to the

question and answer the question. Does the minister realize that government is

giving away Crown land for free to EDGE companies that may create new jobs? Why,

then, is the government turning around and discriminating against local

companies already hiring Newfoundlanders, and forcing them to pay for Crown

lands, and perhaps forcing them to lay off Newfoundlanders in order to pay the

bill for the leases or the grants?

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest to the hon. member that there are very few

people in the Province getting free land. We brought in a new program for

market-value pricing that will certainly indicate to everybody in the Province

that land will be under ownership of the individuals and the corporations and

companies that purchase that land. We feel it is a good program. It has worked

very well to date and we have no reason to turn back on what we have been doing

to date.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My first question today is for the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation.

Since the Voisey's Bay smelter and refinery have gone to

Argentia, and the Premier has committed that the government will be more

sensitive to the needs and concerns of Labrador, can the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation therefore, give us an update today, on the situation

with the air ambulance service for St. Anthony which services southern Labrador;

or is she still calling for the privatization proposals after saying:

privatization is more expensive? And is she still refusing to even write into

the tender specs, that this service must be based in St. Anthony, adjacent to

southern Labrador?

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The privatization process is in progress with respect to the

air ambulance as announced by this government approximately a month ago. We are

now in the process of determining the tender specifications that we will call

for, I expect that that process will be completed within the next month and that

the tenders will be called by the beginning of the new year.

Those tender specifications will define the service levels

that government requires for the air ambulance service for the Province; they

will also define the nature of the service. It will accommodate government's

being able to evaluate the quality of the service that we will expect to

maintain within the Province as a whole. It is a very comprehensive document

and, in view of that, we are taking considerable time to try to ensure that we

design a good tender document so that we will have a comprehensive proposal to

evaluate when they come from the private sector.

It is our intention to proceed to evaluate fully, how we will

administer and deliver the air ambulance services to the Province through the

private sector. So, in terms of the initial questions that you are asking, are

we going to privatize the service? We have announced that, yes we are proceeding

on that course. We will define within the tender document all of the

specifications that are necessary for us to ensure that we can continue to

deliver a high-quality air ambulance service to the entire Province, in the most

economical and cost-efficient measure and way.

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

South, a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next question is for the Minister of Health.

The government is racing full steam ahead into privatization

that its own figures prove just does not make sense.

Has the Minister of Health issued a call for proposals or

tenders for the provision of medical personnel to accompany the air ambulance,

and if so, is there a specification that such personnel will be based at St.

Anthony, adjacent to the Northern Peninsula and southern Labrador, which rely on

this service?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the question, my hon. colleague, the Minister of Work,

Services and Transportation, has just indicated that all of the necessary

specifications vis--vis, equipment, level of services, type of medical services

and all these sorts of things that would be appropriate in an air ambulance

service, would be outlined fully in the comprehensive package that will be going

forward, the RFP that will be going out to the industry and included in that,

will be the delineation of the level of service on a personnel/medical basis as

well as on an equipment basis.

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

South, a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again for the Minister of Health.

Has the government entered into any arrangements with any

health care firms, and with any participating group from St. John's for the

provisions of medical support personnel and related services to air ambulances

operating in Newfoundland and Labrador as of today?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, all of the required specifications on all aspects of

the air ambulance services that we are going forward to possibly privatize by

way of an RFP, that is being issued by Works, Services and Transportation

include all of the information that would be needed by Works, Services and

Transportation, to make an appropriate judgement as to whether or not we are

doing the right thing.

As we have done historically, every year for I do not know

how far back, the Department of Health indicates the level of service that a

health system needs in terms of Medivac services. The Department of Works,

Services and Transportation has historically taken and continues to take

responsibility to deliver that level of high quality service. I have every

confidence the track the minister is on will prove to be the appropriate one, if

in fact at the end of the day she deems it appropriate to bring forward a

privatization recommendation to Cabinet. We are not that far down the road in

the process yet, but the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his place.

MR. MATTHEWS: - RFP concludes everything.

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

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

My question is for the acting Minister of Development and

Rural Renewal. Last Monday, I believe, or Tuesday, in the House I put questions

asking government to investigate why qualified Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,

dealing with the commissioning work at the Hibernia site, were not hired. The

minister in response said that within the next week or so - first of all she

said she has referred the matter to the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum

Board, she has met with those parties who are interested. Can the minister or

government indicate today that a decision has been reached by the

Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board? If it has, when will they table

it? If it has not, when can we expect it?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his

question. Meetings were held with Hibernia and also with CNOPB. They were

directed by the minister to look into a situation regarding hiring practices by

certain contractors at the Hibernia site in the commissioning phase. That report

is due to the minister and a decision -

AN HON. MEMBER: Due when?

MR. K. AYLWARD: It is due within the next few days, very

shortly. A decision has not been rendered yet as to the next direction. As soon

as the minister receives that report, gets some direction from the report, and

discusses it with the rest of government, we will make a further decision on it.

We have been moving on it very quickly. We are concerned. We want to make sure

that the Atlantic Accord is lived up to for hiring practices at Hibernia, and we

are going to ensure it as we move ahead.

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

Kilbride.

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

I don't think anybody would disagree that in a new and

emerging industry specialists are required to assist any group or society with

that development. I would like to ask the minister this question: In order for

technology transfer to be meaningful on the one hand and real on the other,

would he insist, with future developments, that companies that would come to the

Province, that are involved in development - would he insist as Minister of

Labour that they present a much more detailed training and employment plan, to

the Province, to developers, to ensure that maximum jobs are granted for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and that where qualified personnel exist in

this Province and jobs are available that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

actually get those jobs?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, this government is going to

do whatever it has to do, to ensure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in

this Province, residents in this Province, have an opportunity to work in the

oil industry. Over 6,000 people at peak times worked at Hibernia,

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians mostly, almost to every man and woman. We are

going to work towards that end to ensure that every opportunity is provided.

I am also advised that there have been over 170 joint

ventures in the last four to five years at Hibernia. The transfer of technology

that has occurred has been substantial. We have to do more and we are going to

do more, but we have all had a learning experience. There have been some very

big positives come out of the Hibernia development. Every opportunity for every

person in this Province is going to be pursued diligently by the government, as

is the spirit of the Atlantic Accord. We look forward to seeing what the results

are going to be as we walk through the next number of developments that are now

on the horizon that have recently been announced by this government. Thank you.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, based upon the minister's

response, then, I could assume that the seventy to eighty people who should be

working at the site today who are qualified, within the next two weeks will in

fact be actually working at the site. That is what the minister is really

saying.

A final question. It has become obvious, there is no question

in my mind, that the Hibernia site has been a huge success for this Province.

But there have been some areas which we need to address as a House of Assembly

and which government needs to address, and one of them deals with dispute

resolution. Would the minister agree that we need a more definitive set of

enforceable regulations that are needed now to protect, on the one hand, people

who are qualified and who are at the site, to ensure that with - those

regulations would ensure that where a dispute exists that a dispute is rectified

and handled immediately? Would the minister agree that that is what is needed

right now?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we have had over 6000 people

working at this site, for the most part without any problems. When you have a

large industrial site you do run into some problems, but I do agree that we need

to have, in the future, and even at the present time, as quick as possible, a

resolution to problems when they arise, especially at work sites anywhere in the

Province for that matter.

In this case we are pursuing that very diligently, and we are

going to ensure that we have, and are looking at mechanisms to ensure, that in

the future, especially, and also in the present, to deal with any disputes at

work sites, especially at Hibernia. We want to ensure that resolutions can be

brought forward to deal with these problems as quickly as possible because the

longer they fester the tougher it is on everybody involved.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride on a final

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Let me

ask the minister one final question, dealing with what the labour regime will

look like in terms of the production aspect of the Hibernia site, the Premier, I

guess, in a question last week announced that they would be looking at what an

effective labour regime would look like. Can the minister update the House on

what initiatives have been taken by government to date in terms of addressing,

redesigning, or looking at what effective labour regime will be in place for the

production phase of the Hibernia platform?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, for the last thirty days,

since the Premier announced at a conference with the labour unions and labour

workers, further consultation to look at an offshore labour relations regime for

the offshore industry, we are looking at our present labour law, we are looking

at labour laws in Norway, in Europe, and in other jurisdictions. We are

evaluating that at this present time, and we are going to be announcing the

hiring of a consultant to look at this for us also, and to give us some advice

in the next number of months, in the short-term, to give us advice and help us

with the direction we need to go. We are going to be consulting with the labour

movement, we are going to be consulting with HMDC, and all who are interested in

the future of the offshore. We are going to do our homework, we are going to do

it well, and we are going to do it right.

Thank you.

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

MR. OSBORNE: My questions are also for the Minister of

Environment and Labour. Some six months ago the minister stated that it was time

for action on the cleanup of the St. John's harbour. He stated that the Province

was going to set up a fund and start putting monies aside for the cleanup of the

harbour. Has the government started putting this money away, and how much has

been earmarked to date by the Province for the harbour cleanup?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, first I thank the member for

the question. We have been very supportive in getting the St. John's harbour

cleaned up. We did not indicate specifically that we were setting up a fund. The

City Council of St. John's have indicated they were setting up a fund, but we

have indicated that we are very supportive. As a matter of fact over the last

year and a half we have brought together the councils in this area to ask them

to look at a plan, and to make it a priority, for when they come forward to the

governments, federal and provincial, for municipal or for federal funding.

They have done that, Mr. Speaker, and we are very pleased

with developments that have occurred in the past few weeks. They have brought

forward a plan working with the local group ACAP, a coastal action plan here in

St. John's. Their proposals are very sound. They are based on good engineering

work that has been done and carried out just recently, and the government here

will take it under consideration and will be making it a priority for

consideration further, and will also be seeking the federal government to see

where they are going to be going with this. We are very pleased with the

homework that has been done and we are looking at it as a priority.

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

a supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I refer the minister back to media coverage at the time at

which point he did state that the Province would be setting up a fund. As he

stated, St. John's, Mount Pearl, and Paradise, have committed to providing one

third of the $35 million for phase one of the harbour cleanup. Will the

Environment Minister confirm that the provincial government is also willing to

contribute one third of the monies needed for a harbour cleanup under an

infrastructure program? Will he also tell us if there will be funding available

from the Province for the harbour cleanup, regardless of Ottawa's response?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, again we are very pleased

that the councils of Paradise, Mount Pearl and the City of St. John's have come

together finally to make this a priority. During the last year and a half they

have been working on this and have come together and put forward a plan to deal

with the cleanup of St. John's harbour for the whole region.

We are very pleased with this and we are going to be looking

at it. If an infrastructure program is announced by the federal government we

will be looking at this as a provincial government, as a priority. We now, for

the first time, Mr. Speaker, have the regional municipalities who have now put

this forward as a priority for municipal funding. This is the first time that

that has ever occurred. Mr. Speaker, I can't commit here today that we are going

to sign the cheque. What I say to the House, Mr. Speaker, is that we are very

pleased they brought it forward. They have their homework done. We are going to

consider this, Mr. Speaker, because we want to see the St. John's harbour

cleaned up!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we have been a pro-active

government when it comes to the environment. We just announced a deposit return

system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: We just announced a deposit return

system, Mr. Speaker, for the first time in twenty odd years. We are going to see

kids, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

MR. K. AYLWARD: We are going to see kids, Mr. Speaker,

going out around this Province cleaning up this Province, getting some funds for

the schools and getting some funds for charity groups. Mr. Speaker, I tell you,

we are a pro-active government when it comes to the environment -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. K. AYLWARD: And I can assure the member, that when it

comes to St. John's harbour that we are going to be there, Mr. Speaker, we are

going to be there. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, on a point

of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have what I think is a very important point of order. It

may be a question of privilege. I leave it to Your Honour to determine whether

it falls in the category of a point of order or a point of privilege, as a

member.

Mr. Speaker, it has to do with the response to ministerial

statements in this House. Today, for example, the Minister of Environment and

Labour gave a statement as to what was going to happen with the removal of a

very important project from the environmental assessment process. I wanted to

say how shocked I was that the government was going to do that, but I was denied

the opportunity to do that by the Official Opposition who wanted to cheer the

minister on.

Then, the Minister of Mines and Energy got up and talked

about the continuation of oil exploration offshore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his point of order.

MR. HARRIS: I am introducing the point of order, Mr.

Speaker, by saying what has been going on in this House since the fall session

started, and asking Your Honour for an

interpretation of the rules of the House,

because the policy seems to be that the Official Opposition does not want anyone

else over here to oppose government business and government statements.

I think a proper

interpretation of the rules would allow

people on the Opposition who want to stand up and respond to ministerial

statements to do so.

Mr. Speaker, there are no provisions in our Standing Orders

as to how ministerial statements are to be handled; therefore, we go to

Beauchesne . Now Beauchesne indicates that, in responses to

ministerial statements, the Official Opposition is entitled to half the time of

the government, minister, and that other people speaking are entitled to half

the time of that Official Opposition spokesman, and the right to speak is given

to parliamentary parties.

Now we have no notion of parliamentary parties in this

Province. Our rules do not speak to parliamentary parties. So I would suggest to

Your Honour that the proper

interpretation for this House is the Elections Act,

which provides for registered political parties. Now, registered political

parties is a well-known concept as a result of the new Elections Act, and the

new Elections Act provides that there are registered political parties who can

meet certain qualifications, and those registered political parties are

represented here in this House. There are three of them. And I would suggest

that a proper

interpretation of the rules would provide that a spokesperson, or

a member of a registered political party, has a right to speak in the House to

ministerial statements, and that the privileges of this member, in the

opposition, to oppose or to speak in opposition to ministerial statements are

being denied by the Official Opposition, and the

interpretation of the rules

which require unanimous consent.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. Opposition House Leader want to speak to the

point of order?

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on each occasion when the hon. member rises,

you, as the Speaker of this House, will ask all hon. members, "Does the member

have leave?" It is then incumbent upon each member of this House to make a

decision: whether that member will give access and say yes, or whether the

member chooses to deny the leave.

Mr. Speaker, the member who raises the point of order is a

single member of this House. He has no more status than any other single member

of this House. It is my understanding that should his membership increase in

number then he will have status of one of the parties that would be given

recognition in the House. Until that happens, the member has no more rights than

any other single member of the House. If that were not the case, the Speaker of

this House would not be asking for leave on each occasion when the hon. member

wishes to speak.

Members on this side of the House exercise their right to

either give consent or to deny consent when the member rises, and we will

continue to do that as we have done in the past.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader to the point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, technically and parliamentary the

Opposition House Leader is right. You can't deny the hon. gentleman is just an

individual member of the House, the same as the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse

au Clair. But I know that there have been times in this Legislature when the

Opposition has not stuck to that technical detail. It has given the member of

the NDP the right to speak on certain occasions. It seems to me that it is using

a rule of the House, and abusing a rule of the House, and using the Member for

Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi when it hopes he is going to say something to oppose

the government, or criticize the government in some way.

There are occasions we believe on this side - I agree, we

cannot give blanket leave to the hon. member. It isn't a rule of this House that

the hon. gentleman be given the right to speak on every ministerial statement.

But there are occasions, and the hon. gentleman will know that there have been

occasions, when we on this side, even though we know that he is going to stand

and lambast us and kick us and boot us all over the place, that we have said to

him on occasion: You can have leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

MR. TULK: So, Mr. Speaker, I think the (inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member -

MR. TULK: To come to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I

think the hon. gentlemen on the other side, if they are going to stick to the

parliamentary rules of the House, then they should stick to the parliamentary

rules of the House and not use them to their advantage, and indeed on occasion

give the hon. gentleman time to say something.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.

The hon. member knows that the practice in this House has

been that whenever a ministerial statement is presented the Official Opposition

party or the critic of the Official Opposition party is given half the time of

the member or the minister presenting the statement. That has been the practice

ever since I've been here, and ever since all of the other members have, I

guess, been here. That is the practice that will stay in place. Because if not,

if we recognize private members for ministerial statements, then any member of

the House could stand and respond to that particular statement. There is no

point of order.

Petitions

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise

again today to present to the hon. House a number of petitions that have been

forwarded to me in the last several days relative to the issue of paid adult bus

monitors. I have read into the record on previous occasions the prayer of the

petition. Basically what the parents who signed the petition are asking is that

the government examine the issue of paid adult bus monitors. They believe that

their children who are going to school on school buses that are unsupervised are

at risk, and they want the government to place the safety of their children as a

priority issue.

As we have said on previous occasions, there are circulating

throughout the Province great numbers of those petitions. I'm to understand that

several thousand will be presented in the next several days. However, as they

arrive at my office I try to present them in a timely fashion, and that is what

I am doing this afternoon.

We have had some discussions. A few days ago the hon. the

Minister of Education did rise in his place and talked about the programs in

various other parts of Canada and we appreciate that. We appreciate the fact

that he has done some research or has caused research to be done by his

department officials. We also had some commentary from the minister relative to

safety programs that are being put in place for school bus drivers and we

appreciate that. We also note that the minister is looking at lowering the

maximum age of the buses that can be used to transport students to and from

school in Newfoundland and Labrador and making that maximum age more consistent

with the maximum age that is now in place, particularly in Ontario and in the

Province of Quebec.

We appreciate all of these efforts; however, the parents who

have signed these petitions are calling for paid adult bus monitors and we, as

Members of this House, are required as the representatives of our constituents

to present these petitions to the House, and ask the minister for his

consideration. So, Mr. Speaker, today I present four more pages of petitions

that have been signed by my constituents in the city of Mount Pearl. I will

table them with the House and I am sure the Minister of Education will take into

consideration the wishes of these parents when he is giving further

consideration to the issue that has been raised on a number of occasions already

in this House.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to support this petition as has been presented by my

colleague, the Member for Waterford Valley.

This petition, once again, addresses the issue of adult

monitoring programs in the Province and, Mr. Speaker, it addresses specifically

the fact that students are being unsupervised and are at risk in their safety

going to and from school on school buses and the position of the petitioners is

that the safety of children in this Province is being compromised.

Mr. Speaker, we heard the other day the hon. minister make

reference to the fact that there are indeed some initiatives being worked on and

developed in this Province with respect to monitoring, and in fact, safety

programs are in place to deal with safety, particularly of primary and

elementary school children and an issue with respect to a minimum age of buses

is also being addressed by the department.

However, I would ask the minister, and in support of this

petition, that perhaps the minister would look at what is being requested by the

many parents in this Province, and that is an issue of adult bus monitors. It is

felt by many parents in this Province that student bus monitors does not go far

enough. Granted, it tends to deal with a situation on an interim basis, it tends

to deal with the situation, perhaps, on a tentative basis but it does not go far

enough in ensuring, Mr. Speaker, that the safety and protection of children,

particularly primary and elementary school children, are being considered at all

times. So, Mr. Speaker, I stand to support this petition. I support the position

being made by many parents and school administrators as well.

In fact, the concept of adult-bus-monitor program is one

which is required in this Province, and in view of many of the statements that

have been made by parents, particularly in recent days, I stand to support their

initiative and will continue to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the presentation of the petition again because

it is a serious issue that is currently under review in the department. I just

want again, to add some information. Because it seems that the Opposition

members are going to persist in presenting these petitions, even though, as I

pointed out the last time when the petition was presented that they have since

changed their position from the beginning days, because this petition, Mr.

Speaker, is very specific. It is not about the general issues of bus safety, it

is about one particular aspect of it, which is paid adult monitors, and that is

one part of a wide range of issues that are being studied. The initial reaction

from the Opposition a while ago is that they didn't think that was necessary.

But now, rather than sit with parents who bring these petitions to them and talk

about the whole range of issues and what other solutions might be possible, they

feel there is some politics in just getting up, presenting a petition and

saying, `we are for adult paid monitors.'

Just for the record, Mr. Speaker, it might be interesting to

note this: When members of the party opposite were the government - in the late

1970s when the Progressive Conservative Party was the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador, the first school bus regulations for the Province were brought in,

and the good news is they did a good job. They did a very good job, Mr. Speaker,

because the regulations that have been in place now since 1979 have been

reviewed periodically by Progressive Conservative Governments for the next

decade, right up to 1989 and there was seen to be no need to change, including

the issue of monitors and adult paid monitors. The government of which their

colleagues were members for ten years, addressed that issue ten years in a row,

Mr. Speaker, and came to the conclusion that adult paid monitors need not be

part of the system and this government, which has been in place since 1989, has

reviewed that issue repeatedly and has concluded as well that adult paid

monitors need not be part of the system.

I pointed out in the House again, in response to the petition

the last time, Mr. Speaker, that the record does show, because they indicated in

supporting the petition a day or two ago that they had done some research on the

matter, obviously, very little. The record shows that in other jurisdictions in

Canada, nobody has a monitoring system on school buses that is anywhere close to

what we have in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have the most advanced system in

the country, to my knowledge. And now, rather than sit and discuss the issue

with parents who are dealing with one aspect of school bus safety, they are

saying, `oh yes, we will present your petition and we are all for adult paid

monitors,' because they think there is something in that for them politically is

the only motivation - I know we are not supposed to do that, Mr. Speaker. The

only motivation I can suggest in concurring with it, rather than discussing the

broad parameters of bus safety, including monitoring, is that they think there

must be some political constituency to play to with respect to this issue.

It is a serious issue, Mr. Speaker. Our review is just about

complete. We have met with the parents groups and we will again, to indicate

what adjustments, if any, we will make to regulations with respect to school

busing in general, including monitors on those buses to ensure the safety of the

passengers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It being Private Members' Day, Motion 3.

Private Members' Day

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to put forward a private member's motion.

MR. TULK: Does the hon. gentleman want to speak to that

(inaudible)?

MR. FITZGERALD: I think we should grant everybody who

wants to speak, an opportunity to speak. What will happen, I say to the

Government House Leader - maybe you should confer with our House Leader. I beg

your pardon?

MR. DECKER: What happened to the other motion

(inaudible)?

MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know but this one was put forward

first, I say to the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, this one was put forward first, I say

to the minister. Yes, it was put forward first. This one was put forward, I say

to the justice minister, at the last sitting of the House of Assembly. It reads;

WHEREAS the current automobile insurance rate structure in

Newfoundland and Labrador is unfair and the rates are unacceptably high; and

WHEREAS the statistical territories used as guides in setting

insurance rates do not reflect fairly the risks to motorists in different areas

of the Province;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House express

its disapproval of the current automobile insurance rate structure and insurance

rates;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador take appropriate action to produce an improved

automobile insurance rate structure that is fair and that gives consumers

insurance rates that are more reasonable.

Mr. Speaker, this particular resolution was brought forward,

I suppose, after many conversations that I have had in my own particular

district and I guess as it related to the unfairness the way the territory

rating was structured. Nobody seems to want to admit any part of being an

accessory to the fact that we have the Province divided into three territories,

and how those three territories were derived.

Right now in this Province we have the Avalon Peninsula and

the Bonavista and Burin Peninsulas, as far west as Port Blandford, in Territory

1; the remainder of the Province in Territory 2; and Labrador in Territory 3.

Those three territories play a big

part in the way insurance companies come up

with rate premiums when you go to insure your automobile. It plays a big part.

I put forward a couple of scenarios here in the House before

of a single, twenty-year-old, male driver with three years driving experience,

driving - you had to pick a vehicle - a 1992 Ford Ranger pick-up. If he lived in

Territory 1, and this gentleman purchased automobile insurance, public liability

would cost him $2,224; collision, with $250 deductible, would cost him $883;

comprehensive, with $100 deductible, would cost him $164. If that same

individual was living in Territory 2, points west of Port Blandford, that same

policy would cost him, for $500,000 public liability, $1,515 as compared to

$2,224, a saving of $700 there in public liability, an item which is compulsory.

You must have public liability today in order to drive in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Collision, with $250 deductible, would cost him $1,237 as compared to

$883; and comprehensive $164 as compared to $114, with a difference of $453.60.

Mr. Speaker, the people on the Bonavista and Burin Peninsulas

thought it was very unfair to be lumped in with the urban area of St. John's,

Mount Pearl, and Conception Bay South, and I can understand that. I can

understand the risk of having an accident in here, when you get up in the

morning and drive to work during rush hour, is much, much greater than getting

up and driving from Bonavista to Port Union, or from Arnold's Cove to

Clarenville, much, much greater; but the reflection of the risk is certainly not

fairly directed on the cost of the premium.

I understand, from talking with the Superintendent of

Insurance, that finally they have admitted as well that there is a real problem

here, that some of this needs to be changed. We fully realize that there is a

committee of the House structured to look at aspects of insurance, the select

committee, to review property and casualty insurance in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Some people are saying: Well, the committee does not have to

report back to the House until November, 1997. We feel that this change should

be implemented and brought about now. We feel that the insurance rating

territories do not have to wait for the Select Committee on Auto Insurance to

report back to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am a member of that particular insurance

committee, and I feel it is probably the best committee on which I have served

in the four years that I have been here. I think it is going to be a committee

that will produce some positive results, make some positive suggestions, to come

back to government and save the taxpayers and the residents of this Province

probably hundreds and thousands of dollars as it relates to insurance premiums

once we receive submissions, and we allow people to voice their opinions, and

look at a medium there that will give us good coverage, good protection, for a

fair price. Also, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the insurance companies will get a

fair return on their money and on their investment, and on their risk as well.

Mr. Speaker, this particular territory change, I understand

from listening to the minister here in his response to a petition that I

presented some time ago, may not necessarily have to wait for the committee to

report back to the House. In fact, I understand that the minister is awaiting a

paper now from the Superintendent of Insurance to go back and make a suggestion

to Cabinet that they look at taking the Bonavista and Burin peninsulas out of

Territory 1 and putting them in Territory 2 now, which would reflect a fair risk

and a fair premium for the risk that is involved. I would ask Cabinet when this

particular paper comes before them by the minister that they would certainly

listen and pay heed.

The way in which insurance companies rate drivers is

something that has to be looked at in this Province as well. I think it is

certainly unfair, it is unheard of in other provinces I'm sure, the way that

insurance companies look at placing individuals in categories when they go and

apply for insurance. One time if you had auto insurance in this Province - for

those of us who do have auto insurance, and there is a fair number driving today

who do not have auto insurance, and I would like to touch on that before I move

on.

There was a write-up in The Evening Telegram not too

long ago which suggested that approximately between 6 per cent and 8 per cent of

drivers in Newfoundland and Labrador were driving without automobile insurance.

I would suggest to the minister, I would suggest to people opposite, that the

percentage is much greater than that. In fact, it is probably as high as 20 per

cent of the people in this Province driving today without automobile insurance -

not underinsured, but without insurance whatsoever.

Here is what happens, I say to members opposite. You go today

and you purchase automobile insurance. Let us take the minimum of insurance,

which is $200,000 public liability,

Section D, and some companies require you to

have

Section B as well, which is medical payments. That is the least amount of

insurance that you are allowed to drive with. A lot of insurance companies

arrange a financing

schedule whereby you can come forward, you pay 25 per cent

of your insurance as a down payment, and you finance the remainder over a seven-

or eight-month period, or six-month period, depending on the policy of a

particular company.

Those people who want to short-circuit the rules and

regulations go purchase their insurance, they get their pink slip called a

public liability card, and that is it. Once they get the pink slip and once they

get a policy number with an expiry date that will show one year from the date

that they purchased, they are on their way. Nobody bothers to check anything

after that. There are no payments made, the driver is driving without insurance,

and should you be involved in an accident with one of those drivers who are

driving without insurance, then your own insurance company must pick up the tab

and pay for the cost or the claim of that particular accident. I would suggest

once your insurance company does that, you will find when the renewal date comes

around again you will be penalized by having to pay a higher premium.

I have brought this situation up here in the House before,

and I spoke to the Minister of Justice at the time. The Minister of Justice

said: There is not a lot we can do about it. The reason why we cannot do much

about it is that the division of Motor Registration and the insurance companies

are not in sync together with their computer programs. You can't go to an

insurance company today and print out a message and send it over to Motor

Registration informing them that somebody, Joe Blow, has cancelled his

insurance.

I find that hard to accept. Today we are living in a day of

all the modern technologies, and the cost of providing this free flow of

information back and forth between insurance companies and Motor Registration

would take us out of that market because of price. I fail to believe that. Today

if you are stopped on the highway by one of the police forces in this Province

they can get in their cruiser and call a number. It is only a matter of seconds

before they can tell if your vehicle is registered, if the name is proper, and

they can give you your driver's abstract. If you call an insurance company today

and look for a price on insurance, if you are a new applicant, within the flick

of an eye they can have your old driver's abstract appear before them, on their

own computers that are tied in with motor registration. Still if somebody allows

their insurance to lapse, we cannot come up with a system that will allow Motor

Registration and the insurance companies to send that information back and forth

between the two offices.

Mr. Speaker, because of that and because of the high cost of

insurance premiums a lot of people, as high, I would suggest, as 20 per cent, in

this Province are probably not carrying insurance. So what do the insurance

companies do today? They take the easy way out, and they say: What we will do,

in order to make up for those people who are not carrying insurance, is tack an

$11.00 premium charge on everybody who is responsible enough to have insurance,

on everybody who is responsible enough to pay their bills. So, each individual

in this Province today who has an insurance policy on their vehicle, if you look

at it closely enough, you will find - and I think the rate is pretty well

standard, it is either $10.00 or $11.00 - you will find there is an $11.00

surcharge on that particular policy to pay for the people who are not

responsible enough to carry insurance.

To me, Mr. Speaker, that is certainly not the way it should

be. We have been led to believe in the past that if you are responsible and

purchase what you have to purchase, and carry the insurance coverage you are

suppose to, then there is no reason why we should have to pay for those people

who are not insured or who are under-insured.

Now, if I were in business today, and I am not a business

person, but if I were in business today and I could see an opportunity out there

to increase my business by probably as much as 20 per cent, then I would

probably be one of the first ones who would be willing to invest some money to

make sure that if we could come up with a way of directing this information from

the insurance companies to the Motor Registration. I would be one of the first

ones to say: Let's make this a joint venture and share the cost, because we can

see how we can increase our premiums, see how we can increase our profits, and

our applicants will increase by 20 per cent by making those people who have not

purchased insurance and have not paid their premiums come on side and be

responsible.

I am not convinced that that cannot happen. The only way to

make it happen, I say to members opposite, the only way to make it happen is to

reach out and get at those plates on the vehicles. You can talk about increasing

charges, and you can talk about increasing penalties all you want, but I say to

members of the House that that will not work. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that

if somebody will take the chance today to go out and drive their vehicle, and

take the chance of being involved in an accident, to maim or kill somebody, if

they were willing to take that chance and not be protected, then I can assure

you it will not bother them a lot to be irresponsible for a lot of other things.

The only way you can reach out and get at those people who

are irresponsible is to take the plates off the cars. You might say that we

cannot use our policemen to do that, that we have to put them to better use,

that we have other things our RCMP and RNC should be doing, and I am the first

to agree. It does not have to be an RCMP officer and it does not have to be an

RNC officer, it can be any peace officer.

If you owe the bank money today, Mr. Speaker, it will not

take long before somebody is calling you, you are quickly identified, and

somebody is either knocking on your door to collect the money, or somebody else

is bugging you and will be bugging you the rest of your life until they find you

in order to collect the outstanding fee. If you go downtown and get a couple of

parking tickets the RCMP or the RNC, especially in rural Newfoundland, do not

take a long time to knock on your door and say: We have a ticket here that is

certainly not paid.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at insurance rates in this Province

this past couple of years, you will find that they have skyrocketed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker. Is there a lineup on

the other side? Is the Government House Leader prepared to speak on this? Does

he have ten or twelve people who want to speak on it who are pressing?

MR. TULK: I can tell you seriously, we are all in

agreement with the resolution, and what we would like to do is have a couple of

people get up and vote on it.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just to clue up this part of it here, I

say to the Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at insurance rates today in this

Province you will notice that in the past number of years insurance rates have

sky-rocketed. They have gone through the roof.

The other day, Mr. Speaker, we were presented with some

accident statistics from Motor Registration, and you will find that the number

of accidents, the number of injuries, and the number of fatalities, have

certainly not gone through the roof compared to insurance rates. In fact, I have

statistics here that show 1983 up to the present - well, let's use 1995 because

1996 is not complete yet. In 1983 there were 10,013 accidents here in this

Province. In 1995 the number of accidents was cut in half, 5,848. In 1983 the

number of injuries was 2,352. The number of injuries in 1995 was 2,461. Maybe

that tells us something. Maybe that tells us why our rates have gone through the

roof.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is speaking by leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, that is the reason

why the insurance claims have gone through the roof. Maybe it is because of

settlements in courts, because every other statistic here indicates that our

insurance rates should be lowered, in any case that our insurance rates should

be much, much lower than they are today.

Mr. Speaker, I will allow other people to speak to this

because I know there are members on the other side with great knowledge of what

I am talking about, and I am sure they would want to add some words to this

discussion. I will allow that now. There are other topics that can be brought up

on this. I stuck to the automobile insurance because it is not my intent to

short-circuit the committee, or to talk about what has happened in the committee

since we have been structured.

MR. TULK: Are they dealing with automobile insurance too?

MR. FITZGERALD: I beg your pardon?

MR. TULK: They are dealing with automobile insurance too?

MR. FITZGERALD: They are dealing with both automobile

insurance and with casualty and property insurance, I say to the Government

House Leader.

This is a petition that was presented to me, or a resolution

that was brought forward because of grave concerns on the Bonavista Peninsula

and on the Burin Peninsula, and I thought it was very timely to have presented

it either today - well, we thought we would get it on earlier but there were

other more pressing things that we considered should have been spoken about at

the time.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will allow some other member from

the opposite side to speak, and I will clue up debate at the end.

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak to the resolution brought forward by

the Member for Bonavista South.

The whole situation with insurance in the Province certainly

has escalated in the last few years with the rapid increase in the prices that

our people have to pay for premiums. Because of this, government has taken a

very proactive position in terms of trying to deal with the situation.

Mr. Speaker, last year the previous government had identified

a select committee to deal with one specific area of insurance, which is no

fault. When the government changed, this present government determined that we

needed to expand the role of this particular committee to deal with other

aspects of insurance, one of those being the automobile insurance.

I will just relate to you, Mr. Speaker, that the role we have

provided now for the Select Committee to deal with the insurances will relate to

the whole aspect of no fault, the areas of automobile insurance and other areas

as well.

I think, Mr. Speaker, some of the major concerns that have

been brought forward in the last year are with regard to the rating territories

which were identified a number of years back by the insurance people in the

provincial system. Those territories, at that particular time, were set out to

determine rates in the different areas. Essentially, Territory 3 was determined

to be in Labrador. Territory 2 was to be the Island, except for the Burin,

Bonavista, Avalon and east of the Port Blandford area.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the last number of years the rates have

increased dramatically in these particular areas, especially in Territory 1.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am trying to listen to the hon. the Minister of Government

Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, in the resolution that the

member has brought forward, government has certainly taken the initiative in

terms of dealing with this. The Select Committee which will be dealing with all

aspects of the insurance industry will not be reporting to the House until

November, 1997. So what we have done, as a government, because of the concerns

and the submissions that we have received from the people in the Port Blandford,

Bonavista and Western Avalon areas, is we have decided to take interim look at

areas where we can deal with this situation of the high rates.

Government's initiative, Mr. Speaker, is always to try to be

fair and represent the people fairly in terms of the rates that we certainly

have control over, in terms of insurances. Now, we do know that in the Province

of Newfoundland, insurance rates are governed by the PUB. As well, we also know

that there are only two other areas in Canada that have insurance rates

regulated by the PUB.

One of the things that we are anticipating, while the Select

Committee is dealing with the insurance rates, is to take a serious look at what

we can do in Territory 1. Mr. Speaker, there are perhaps a number of ways that

we can deal with the insurance rates in area one. We are looking at those at the

present time. One of the problems that we had when we were trying to determine

what to do in Territory 1 was the lack of statistical data that we would need in

order to make changes that would improve the situation. It is easy to change

things, but when you want to change things you really want to change them by

knowing what you need to do or what information you need to have before you

change it to make it a better situation than it currently is. We have been

gathering this kind of data since this government started. We have been very

interested and very concerned about the problems that we have been having in

this particular rating territory.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the rates in Labrador, which is Territory

3, we have not been getting very much input on, neither have we been getting a

lot of concerns about the rates in Territory 2, but in Territory 1 we have had

many, many interventions and concerns, both from the Member for Bonavista South

and members on our own side as well who are very concerned about the rates. That

certainly has given us the impetus to deal with the situation prior to the

Select Committee being able to report on this. Now when the Select Committee

reports in November, Mr. Speaker, we anticipate that they will bring

recommendations that will resolve this issue permanently. The solutions that we

are anticipating presently are only temporary and they will only be in effect

until the select committee reports to the House in November of 1997.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House, are always

anticipating that we can do things that will improve the situation for the

insurance payers in the Province. We do realize, as the hon. member said, that

there are people out there without insurance and that is another area that we

will be dealing with as well, in trying to minimize the numbers that are out

there without insurance driving on our highways. We all know that that will

cause other problems in the insurance industry and with government in terms of

coverage or lack of coverage and those types of things.

What I would say, in speaking to this resolution, Mr.

Speaker, is that we have no problem in supporting this resolution because it is

a reasonable resolution; it is very timely. We also, certainly, are taking the

initiative to deal with this and we have been doing this since we formed the

government back in March.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise in my place today to support the resolution put

forward by the Member for Bonavista South.

It is a very timely resolution and the member, I believe,

introduced this resolution back in July and has been waiting some time to get

this resolution to the House and to have a chance to say a few words on it.

Basically, the resolution is asking this House of Assembly to express

disapproval on the current automobile insurance rates structure.

From personal experience, I can get into a lot concerns

myself with respect to insurance rates. I can tell you -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I can sit down. I will give leave to the

Government House Minister if he wants to get up and speak to the resolution?

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

The Chair has recognized the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

There are a lot of points to be made with respect to this

resolution and the insurance rates within the Province. The Member for Bonavista

South and the Minister for Government Services and Lands spoke of the three

territories and the different rates being charged in the territories. Of course,

from the insurance companies' point of view, there are logical reasons why they

would have different rates for the different premiums within these three

different areas. Basically, it is due to the number of accidents, I suppose, and

the number of accidents then, depends upon the amount of traffic that is in each

area.

People pay premiums to the insurance companies based on what

insurance they have, of course, Mr. Speaker. We have collision, we have

comprehensive and we have public liability. As the Member for Bonavista South

mentioned, there are different deductibles for each type of insurance that you

have. Now the risks involved, as I said, in different areas of the Province, are

a big factor in what we would pay.

Some of the concerns that I have with respect to what we pay

in the Province, and I suppose it is similar in other provinces - for example,

back in, I believe it was in 1990, I had an accident in the middle of a snow

storm at an intersection. We, of course, settled it and the insurance company

paid up. It was not a lot of money, only $3,000 or $4,000. I have been paying,

since back in 1990, almost six years, an increased premium on my insurance. It

was only this past month or so I went to my insurance company and asked: Why are

my rates so high? The answer I got was: Well, you were involved in an accident

six years ago which was valued at $3,000 or $4,000. I am still paying for that

to this very day.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just to give you an example of what people

are paying in this Province, I have full coverage on my two vehicles, and I am

paying $2,800, for two people. I have been driving myself for approximately

twenty-five, twenty-six years and my wife the same amount of time, basically. We

are now paying almost $2,800 for insurance because I had an accident six years

ago. My wife has not had any accidents.

I will give you another example as to why people in this

Province are so concerned with respect to automobile insurance. My wife was

driving two years ago and a rock flicked back from a car in front of her and

broke the windshield. She had the windshield replaced. Six months later, a young

kid threw a rock and broke the windshield, so we had the windshield replaced

again. I phoned the insurance company asked: How much would it cost to have the

windshield replaced? I was going to pay for it myself. I was prepared to pay for

it myself rather than have the insurance company pay for it, my rates go up, and

pay for another six years. They told me my deductible would go up somewhat. What

ended up happening was that the windshield - I forget the figures now - was

probably $300 to $400, and in the long haul I think I ended up paying as much as

$900 overall for the windshield. I paid more to the insurance company to have

the windshield replaced than if I had had the windshield done myself at one of

these glass companies.

MR. TULK: You are some stunned.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, there you go. A lot of people in the

Province are in the same boat, I say to the Government House Leader. I had made

the call beforehand, before I had the windshield replaced, I say to the

Government House Leader. So, those are some of the situations in the Province

that we are dealing with today.

Last year, the Minister of Government Services and Lands said

that there was a committee put in place to look at automobile insurance, and

basically look at no-fault and make comparisons. I know members on the other

side of the House are on that Committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What are you saying, preacher? I can't hear

what you are saying. Speak up.

AN HON. MEMBER: I said, last year (inaudible) Government,

Services and Lands than this year.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, that isn't true. Now, listen to what

I'm saying. I said the Minister of Government Services said last year there was

a committee put in place. Okay? That is what I said.

I know the Member for Humber Valley is on that Committee, and

went around with other people. They have done a lot of investigation with

respect to no-fault insurance this year, after this government was elected. I

agree with what they have done. They have expanded basically the

responsibilities of that Committee. They are going to be reporting back, as the

minister says. I think, hopefully, they will be making recommendations that will

help resolve the situation within the Province with respect to the high premium

rates that people are paying.

One of the reasons, I think, that we are now paying higher

premium rates, Mr. Speaker - and I'm not saying this to insult anyone, any of

the public or whatever the case may be. We have a tendency now, in more recent

years, to become a bit more Americanized. I don't know why that is the case, but

now we see people suing for everything, right, left and centre. If there was a

minor accident, maybe a few years people would just forget about it and go on

their merry way and say: Okay, no problem. Today I think people see the

opportunity to get a buck from an accident and of course they are suing.

I've had discussions with some people in the insurance

industry. Basically - and I'm sure there are people in this House who know much

more about this than I do - what is happening now is it depends on injury, and

they are setting certain settlements, I suppose, depending on the injury, if you

had a broken arm, if you had a whiplash, or whatever the case may be. They are

setting rates now where they would pay out to the individual hurt, rather than

basically going to court. Court fees are astronomical, and that in itself is

driving insurance rates up.

The costs, as I said, to the individuals are very

restrictive. For example, people in the Province now - and I've talked to some

people in the know. It seems to be on the increase now, that people are driving

without automobile insurance, and they are taking the risk to be fined rather

than paying out $2,000 and $3,000. If they are caught and go to court they will

be fined for driving without automobile insurance. The fines that are being set

out, I believe, are not as high as what the insurance rates or the insurance

premiums are, so they are taking a risk.

They aren't only taking a big risk with respect to having to

pay a fine, but the problem here, as I see it, is they are taking a risk if they

injure someone or could injure someone for life. Then that person could be left

holding the bag, possibly in a wheelchair for the rest of their life, and not

getting any compensation, and that is the type of risk that people are prepared

to take now because they really cannot come up with the cash to pay the premiums

for the insurance companies. In the economy of today I can understand why. I do

not agree with it, by any stretch of the imagination, but I can understand why

people are prepared to take that chance.

When you sit back and think about it, if an individual now is

on social services, or the working poor, making $5 to $6 an hour, with two or

three children, it is pretty hard to pass out $200 or $300 a month, depending on

the situation, I would say, but it is pretty hard for those individuals to say:

Well, what am I going to do this month? Am I going to put a bit of bread and

butter on the table for my children, or am I going to pay out $200 to my

insurance company? That is a legitimate concern, and that is what the committee

will have to look at in due course when they look at why our premiums are

increasing so fast.

Another point, I suppose, that the insurance companies are

looking at, and I had some discussion with the insurance companies on this, too,

a couple of years ago the then Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

dropped motor vehicle inspections. People, especially the insurance companies,

wondered why that was the case, why the minister did that. Was he being lobbied

by somebody, some groups? I do not know. I still do not understand the reasoning

behind that. It was only recently, when the responsibility went to the

department of the new Minister of Government Services and Lands, there was some

talk that they were reviewing reinstating motor vehicle inspections. Again, the

Minister of Government Services and Lands came out and basically made the

statement that they would not be reinstating motor vehicle inspections. Again, I

believe people in the insurance industry were quite alarmed at that. What is

happening now, I believe that in some cases, depending upon the age of the car,

insurance companies themselves are actually asking for motor vehicle

inspections, and rightly so, that they would request motor vehicle inspections,

because over the long haul, if you break it through, what you will see is that

they are trying to keep the standard of the automobiles on our highways at a

certain level.

Personally speaking, I have seen, on our roads, cars that

maybe two years ago would not be on the highway, by any stretch of the

imagination. Just as a lay person, not being a mechanic or a police officer, or

what have you, I can just look at cars and say: Well, I question whether those

cars should be on the highway.

It was only yesterday, I believe - it was in the media today,

in the news this morning - that on Logy Bay Road there was an inspection

situation set up where a number of cars were hauled in and inspected. I really

do not have the results to comment on how many were actually taken off the road,

but there were a few taken off the road, I believe, I say to the Constable

sitting down at the end.

There are a lot of factors involved with respect to the motor

vehicle insurance within this Province. I made a few notes on this as people

were up speaking so far, and I have pretty well covered what I wanted to say.

There is one point here that I did not mention, the fact that

insurance companies now also charge more, I think, for your premium if a person

has gotten a ticket - a speeding ticket, or driving through a red light or what

have you. I suppose that can be looked at in two ways. If a driver, over a

number of years, over a certain period of time, is consistently getting speeding

tickets, or is consistently going through red lights or amber lights, or

whatever the case may be, and putting people's safety at risk, and by putting

other people's safety at risk they are putting themselves at risk, and they are

putting their insurance companies at risk, and what have you, I can see that

there would be a higher premium for that. But there are people - and I am not

condoning it, but - there are people who would drive along any given highway, or

on Torbay Road, or Logy Bay Road, or Kenmount Road, and be preoccupied. They are

not supposed to be, but they have something on their mind, and they might go

fifteen or twenty kilometres over the speed limit and probably get a speeding

ticket, and their insurance rates could very easily go up because of a speeding

ticket.

I see the Member for Humber Valley making notes, and I know

that he is well informed on this issue, so when he gets up he will probably make

a comment on that point. Maybe it is one ticket, two tickets, or five tickets, I

am not sure, but I certainly do not agree with the fact that if a person gets

one speeding ticket that his insurance rates would go up. It could be that in

any given situation, on any given day, that any of us could be preoccupied and

our speed could creep up on us unknowingly, but we should not have to pay for

that. We pay the speeding ticket, we pay the price, and we pay the penalty at

that point in time, so really I do not know if we should, in other words, pay

the price twice.

Also, the Member for Bonavista South made a comment on the

fact that our insurance premiums go up because people are driving without motor

vehicle insurance, and the premiums go up by $11.00 for each individual in the

Province who is responsible enough to have automobile insurance, and who is

concerned about their driving, and about injuring someone else, or whatever the

case may be. Now, we have to pay an extra $11.00 for those people who do not

care about insurance, or who are driving without insurance. Now, $11.00 may not

sound like a lot but it adds up, I suppose, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: Did you get your windshield fixed yet?

MR. J. BYRNE: Twice, I say to the Government House

Leader.

MR. TULK: Did you get a refund back from your insurance

company?

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I had to pay it back.

That is the very point we were talking about, the Government

House Leader interjecting again and making jokes about a very serious issue.

MR. TULK: I am not making jokes.

MR. J. BYRNE: You are making jokes, and making levity of

the whole situation, and it is a very serious situation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I take it that

my time is up, and may be a few members on the other side will address the

concerns that have been spoken to on this side of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to echo some of the comments made by previous

speakers, and also in doing that I would say from the outset that I will be

supporting the motion put forward by the Member for Bonavista South. It is sort

of a motherhood issue and one that I have been always, for some time now,

interested in and concerned with. Especially, with the way insurance rates are

set in this Province. That, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, is the bottom

line. It is the root of all evil when it comes to the insurance industry in this

Province.

The minister stated in his statement that there are only two

other jurisdictions in Canada that use the PUB board for setting rates. That is

not necessarily bad, just about you use the PUB board. The problem we have with

it, as far as I am concerned, and this is a personal opinion - the member has

already stated that we have a committee in place. The previous committee was

dealing with purely some type of no fault insurance for the Province. The terms

of reference has been expanded now to include all property and casualty

insurance in the Province, namely auto, residential, commercial and so on.

In doing that, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things that

have come to light, especially, as I have said before, with regards to the

setting of rates by the PUB board. That is based primarily on a bench mark range

and that bench mark range is arrived at by an actuarial done by the PUB board.

Done by whom? Done by an actuarial that is hired and paid for by the PUB board.

Now, if the filing and the claim is made within those bench mark ranges, then in

most cases it is automatically accepted, but if it is not then there is a review

called. Who intervenes, Mr. Speaker? Who has the money and the resources in this

Province, especially consumers, the ordinary constituent and consumer, to

intervene, and every member in the House knows this over the years, especially

as it pertains to Newfoundland Power, Newfoundland Hydro, and so on, the

telephone companies, so it becomes an intimidation process and it just does not

work. If anybody ever read the actuarial done by the PUB board for the setting

of rates in this Province, just take note of the references on the bottom of

pretty well every page in the actuarial.

It says; stats obtained from IBC, stats obtained from a

certain province, stats not available in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Who is IBC, Mr. Speaker? IBC represents all the insurance companies in

Canada and we base our rates, our bench mark range in rates based on this type

of actuarial. That to me, Mr. Speaker, is totally wrong. There is a conflict, no

question, when you look at the references made to IBC, brokers and insurance

companies in this Province and other parts of Canada.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that people have said to me:

So what? We don't have to go to Johnsons, we don't have to go to LeGrows, we

don't have to go to RC Anthony. You have to have insurance, Mr. Speaker. How

many people in this Province today can go out, buy a vehicle and not have

insurance, who have the money and all they have to do is put liability on it?

They do not have it. The banks want to be covered and leasing companies want to

be covered. In fact, leasing companies today have a minimum of $1 million

coverage for liability insurance on their vehicles. You cannot take it off the

lot unless there is $1 million worth of coverage on it. Our minimum coverage for

liability in the Province is $200,000. Now most people, if they have a vehicle

and it is not financed by a financial institution, can go out and just put the

liability on it, drive away and take chances on that.

When you go down through - the Member for Cape St. Francis

just mentioned about the tickets. We go out on the demerit system, your point

system, if you lose points you pay a fine. If you get caught a second time, you

lose points and you pay a larger fine. Then you go into an insurance company to

renew your insurance policy and what do they do? They punch in on the computer

and they say: Okay, Mr. John Doe from somewhere in the Province, oh I'm sorry,

you had two speeding tickets last month or six months ago, your insurance has

gone from $478 up to $1,700. Worse still, Mr. Speaker, I have examples from

people in the Province showing that just because they made a claim, put it in,

notified the insurance company and never claimed a thing, claimed absolutely

nothing and their insurance rates have gone up.

I have examples of people with two and three speeding

tickets, switched over to a facility association. Why? When we switched a few

years ago from judgement recovery, Mr. Speaker, in this Province, that is the

only avenue uninsured drivers had in this Province, they went over to a facility

insurance. It was done for what reason? To cover people who were hit by

uninsured drivers in the Province. Then we put a system in place where every -

the Member for Bonavista South has already stated this - every policy holder in

the Province pays eleven dollars, everybody, to cover - well it might be gone up

now to twelve, it used to be eleven dollars - to cover uninsured drivers in the

Province. So the insurance companies are covered but the onus should be on the

insurance companies as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that

motor registration is notified when someone cancels insurance or do not pay

their insurance. Most companies - and I am sure members in the House know full

well, when they get a renewal for their insurance they get this little so-called

pink slip. It comes with your renewal, automatically.

I will never forget the story - an RCMP officer stopped me

last spring just outside of Cormack. He said I meant to tell you before about

this, Mr. Woodford, but I stopped six drivers this morning before 8:00 a.m. He

said four of those drivers never had insurance. Now two, he said, I could prove

right away, I knew because of the dates on them. The other two he said, had the

pink slips. He said, I can venture to bet that they did not have insurance. If

an RCMP officer stops you on the road or an RNC officer, he walks up to your

window, you put down the window, he asks for your license and insurance. The

only thing that he can guarantee when he goes back to his cruiser is that you

have a license. You might think that he is checking out your insurance, he is

not. He does not know. He may take the name and the dates off your insurance

policy -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: That is true, that is a fact. Most people

figure they are checking out their insurance and license but they are not. They

are checking out your license, they will get your license and registration but

they are not checking on the insurance. What some of them do now, they take your

name and information off your insurance slip and when they go back, if you are a

suspect, they will phone the insurance company, the name of the insurance

company is on it and determine then whether they have insurance or not but they

do not do it. I thought for years that when they checked your licence they

automatically checked your insurance.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, like your licence, but it isn't so.

Mr. Speaker, the problem with it is that when we go in to get insurance the

consumer is nailed. Because every insurance company in this Province is tied

into the Motor Registration data base. Every one of them. All they have to do is

punch in their computer and bring up the Member for Bonavista South or the

Member for Conception Bay South or the Member for Humber Valley and tell you

whether you had a speeding ticket last month, tell you whether you had an

accident. They have all that there, and then you are nailed for it. When you

lose your points, when you pay your fine, your second fine, then you go to your

insurance company the next year, and then you are nailed for a higher increase

in your insurance rates. So you can't win.

To me, fifteen minutes to speak on a subject like this, I

think that we should probably be given a week in the House for each member to

speak for seven or eight hours and bring out all the pros and cons of insurance

and the way it is carried out in this Province. Because every consumer in this

Province, everybody is touched by it, one way or the other, whether it be auto,

residential, or commercial. We have to have it, people must have it. Most

responsible people in the Province will carry it.

The member stated he believes there is probably, what, 20 per

cent. I'm the same way, probably higher.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty per cent of what?

MR. WOODFORD: Twenty per cent of the drivers in this

Province driving without insurance. Now, IBC says there is 6 per cent to 8 per

cent. I think there is more than that, to be honest with you. Something is going

to have to be done in that situation.

With regards to the rating territories in this Province,

rating territories one, two and three, we all know now why the increases on the

insurance rates in territory one are so high. Because of the urban centre and

more accidents, that is why, they are telling us, that the rates are up. I

agree. Why should someone out in Burin Peninsula -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: That is right. Bonavista, and out around

the outside have to pay those same rates. We do it on an individual basis. When

they go in - and I had two tickets. They rolled me over into facility insurance.

If I had two accidents they rolled me over into facility insurance and nailed me

for $3,000 or $4,000. But yet, because someone is driving in an urban centre,

and someone is out in Bonavista South or Burin, they will pay the same rate.

Just go west of Bonavista, different rate altogether, as much as 20 per cent

less. Go to Labrador, in rating three on Labrador, it is different still. But

yet -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: The member said to me (inaudible) going to

get a ticket for snowmobiles down in Wally Andersen's district. But Wally

Andersen is after getting three or four tickets, so he isn't here, I'm sorry,

to....

AN HON. MEMBER: For speeding.

MR. WOODFORD: For speeding. Mr. Speaker, it is very

serious business. Last year when we looked into this with regards to the

no-fault part of it, the insurance companies said, and this is no secret, that

it was brought on by third-party claims. Third-party claims. Well, put it

bluntly, the law firms in the Province were to blame, the chiropractors, and the

physiotherapists. When we figured and said and suggested that the terms of

reference were going to be expanded to include all types, all property and

casualty insurance, what happened? The insurance companies went right snaky, so

to speak. They did not want us looking into underwriting practices. I was told

in no uncertain terms: What right do you have to look into underwriting

practices?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) true.

MR. WOODFORD: I asked a gentleman, I said: What right

have you got to question me for looking into underwriting practices? I'm

representing the consumer. Every man and woman in this House was elected to

represent the consumer. But yet you aren't allowed to question underwriting

practices, which is done by regulation. Some of it is by legislation. It has to

be brought back into this House and dealt with,. Most of it is done by

regulation through the Superintendent of Insurance, and they can do pretty well

what they like.

We have to question the claims practices, we have to question

the time limit on settlements, we have to question whether the PUB board is an

effective mechanism for dealing with insurance rate increase in the Province and

there are a number of other things as far as I am concerned, if we do nothing

else on the committee, only address the underwriting practices and the validity

of some of those practices, then as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, we will

be doing the consumer justice. We will be doing the consumer justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: We just saw Friday evening, Johnsons

Insurance, a great company, well run, a good, efficient company like all other

insurance companies in the Province we hope, and the latest information I had,

they are - $40 million. Who were they bought out by? Royal Insurance, a company

that is worth $100 billion. Who runs Icon? Who is looking after the interest of

the people of the Province on that when you look at AXA, $450-billion industry,

just bought out a insurance company in Europe the other day for $250 million,

$67 million in profits last year in the States.

An example last night, when we had a gentleman looked after

in a hotel room, where did he come from? Some part of the United States, went in

and went and checked out a hotel room without a piece of equipment, not a piece

of equipment. There is another company in the Province looked after by another

company, outside the Province. So, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to

question, somewhere along the way, why such large increases?

I have been noticing and I am sure the Member for Bonavista

South and other members of the committee have been noticing though, in the last

few months, certain things have been addressed that never have been addressed

before.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, just a couple more minutes?

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

leave.

MR. WOODFORD: I won't take other members time but I will

try to just deal with this particular one I was just talking about, Mr. Speaker.

With regards to the increases by the companies, something has

to be done with regards to the way they go in and just ask for rate increases. I

noticed and members noticed, some of the press clippings in the last few weeks,

one as late as today, and I will just quote, comments made by IBC and so on:

"But the mountain of claims may have hit a plateau sooner than expected,

allowing some insurances companies to quickly jump into the black." Quickly jump

into the black? "Our experience would suggest, yes, claims have levelled off."

MR. FITZGERALD: Sold the other day for 100 million.

MR. WOODFORD: "The size of the claims has levelled off

but accident rates have also decreased."

True, the Member for Bonavista South just mentioned it, 9,900

and some odd accidents back in 1991. That was when the reporting, Mr. Speaker,

was $500 or over, a change I think it was in 1991. Now, today, it was 3,100 and

some odd accidents, cut by 66 per cent or 70 per cent, when the reporting is

$1,000 or more and has to be reported. Previous to 1991, it was $500; a thousand

dollars since 1991 but yet, the accidents in the Province have gone from 9,900

and some odd down to 3,100 and some odd this year, Mr. Speaker. Fatalities went

in 1991, from fifty-one down to today, twenty-six. The exact figure on the

accidents with 9,934 to 3,177 today when our insurance rates in this Province

have gone anywhere from 26 per cent to 42 per cent in the last four years.

Now, Mr. Speaker, someone will have to explain why such

large, large increases. So this committee, Mr. Speaker, has a lot of work to do.

We were told not to go outside the purview of looking at auto insurance. Don't

go outside, it is none of your business. Well, Mr. Speaker-

AN HON. MEMBER: Who told you that?

MR. WOODFORD: Certain people here in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: But not in the House?

MR. WOODFORD: No, no, not in the House.

We have a lot of work to do, and a lot of questions to ask.

Like I said, this is the type of subject on which you could go on and on, but I

am sure there is not a member of the House who has not been touched one way or

another by the way that insurance rates are set, but more importantly by the way

they are administered and treated by insurance companies in this Province.

I think the people of this Province deserve better, and I

think it is incumbent upon each member of this Chamber to make sure that our

clients, that our consumers and our constituents, are treated in a fair and

equitable way.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, there is unanimous consent on this

resolution, I think, that we are all going to vote for the resolution. I just

want to make a point. We were waving at each other across the House, and I do

not know whether the hon. gentleman on the other side is ready to put the motion

and adjourn the House so that we can get on, maybe, with some business that we

all have to do, and maybe do some work in our offices, or have meetings that we

all need to carry out, because we are all in agreement on this resolution.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, with the agreement of my

colleagues who are present here in the House, having had a chance to discuss it

with them and with the mover of the motion, and in agreement with my hon.

colleagues on the opposite side of the House, we would have no objection to

perhaps permitting my friend, the Member for Bonavista South to have some

concluding comments. Then we could put the question and we would agree to

adjourn the House for the day and to reconvene tomorrow at the regular time.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I will not prolong the debate any

further. I thank members, both opposite and on this side, for supporting this

resolution. It is one that I think touches us all, and the people that we

support out there.

I suppose insurance, by its very name, when you look at it,

why do we buy insurance? We buy insurance to protect us. You go out and buy a

life insurance policy today, and if you die tomorrow you do not have somebody

knocking on your door, saying that there is a price on dying. But you go and buy

auto insurance, and as soon as you go to use it, what happens? You have to pay

extra for it. Insurance, by its very name, right here, as it relates to auto

insurance, to me is a farce and not truly representative of the reason why we

buy protection.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank members opposite, and

members on this side as well, who spoke in favour of this resolution, and I

would implore the Minister of Government Services and Lands to try to bring his

suggestions to Cabinet for approval, especially to get the Bonavista and Burin

Peninsulas taken out of Territory 1, where they are placed now, and put in

Territory 2, where the reflection of the risk would be an indication of the

reflection of premiums, because I feel that right now it is certainly unfair for

those two particular areas to be lumped in with the greater urban area, to be

paying the cost of insurance premiums as they have been charged since

Confederation, I guess.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All in favour of the motion, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Opposed, `nay'.

I declare the motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before we move the adjournment of

the House, I should inform members in my usual, magnanimous, co-operative,

ever-loving manner -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are you talking about?

MR. TULK: Talking about me, boy.

I should inform the Opposition House Leader that tomorrow we

are going to start with Order No. 13 on today's Order Paper, second reading of a

bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act". (Bill No. 25) We will leave

out No. 38 until the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs returns to the

Province, and then we will just move down the Order Paper. I presume that by

tomorrow evening at 5:00 o'clock we should have most of it done.

With that I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at

2:00 p.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow,

Thursday at 2:00 p.m.