May 30,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 34

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the

public galleries twenty-two students and their teacher, Mr. Adrian Norman, who

are Level III students from St. Francis Xavier High School, Long Harbour,

Placentia Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to ask that you, on behalf of all Members

of the House of Assembly, join with me because we just found out, and actually

are very proud and pleased to inform yourself, Your Honour, and all members of

the House, that a Newfoundland author, Ms. Bernice Morgan, has won the Canadian

Authors' Association Literary Award for Fiction for her latest book, Waiting

for Time .

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: The book was published in Newfoundland by

Breakwater Books, and I am sure that all members of the House would join with us

in asking you to acknowledge this significant accomplishment and wish her

continued success with her writing.

Thank you.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a fan of Bernice Morgan's writing, and as one of the many

people who have read Random Passage and Waiting for Time , who

thinks the books are brilliant, I am delighted to join with the minister on

calling on Your Honour to send a message of congratulations to Bernice Morgan.

These books portray Newfoundland life from the 1830s until

some point in the next century, and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MS. VERGE: I say to any who have not read them that they

are a must read, both the books.

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

have leave to address the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave given.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As one who has read both Random Passage and Waiting

for Time , I want to join with the minister in congratulating Bernice Morgan

on winning this award. Members may well know also that Random Passage is

about to be made into a movie, and with all the hullabaloo a few years ago the

Shipping News -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: With all the hullabaloo a few years ago about

shipping news, which was written by an American set in a Newfoundland setting,

those who have read both Shipping News and Random Passage will, by

far I think, prefer the home-grown Newfoundland version of Newfoundland's

history.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier about the fishery.

Why has the Premier and the provincial government gone along

with the federal government capitulation to the Spanish on overfishing outside

the 200-mile limit? Why didn't the provincial government fight for Canada to

stay the course after the federal government had the Estai under arrest

in St. John's harbour? Why has the Premier simply watched silently and posed at

Brian Tobin's photo opportunities, while the federal government released the

Estai , gave back most of the undersized catch, waived the fines and

negotiated an agreement that allows the Spanish to carry on with fishing outside

the 200-mile limit, and gave them an even larger quota and sets out a useless

enforcement mechanism? Why didn't the Premier fight for Newfoundland?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to

address the House on the whole issue of foreign overfishing and the manner in

which the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Tobin, dealt with these

issues but I am certainly not prepared to deal with it in the context of that

convoluted mishmash that we just heard from the Leader of the Opposition.

It's quite simple. After pressing the Mulroney Administration

after coming into office in '89, and for the first time, the government of this

some decisive action on that, for the first time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: The former government was too afraid to

ask them to do anything at the time. Mr. Mulroney's Administration, of which Mr.

Crosbie was a part at the time, was just not prepared to move on it because I

suppose of concerns in the rest of Canada. Now, here I don't want to be unfairly

critical of Mr. Crosbie.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Here I don't want to be unfairly critical

of Mr. Crosbie. I have, no doubt, on a personal basis he tried his best, but he,

Mr. Speaker, had to face the reality that he was one member from Newfoundland in

a Cabinet that had other considerations involving the rest of Canada and very

little interest in dealing with the issue in Newfoundland, so I have no doubt,

on a personal basis, Mr. Crosbie must have tried his best and I give him the

credit that he deserves. But it wasn't until Jean Chrtien came on the scene

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: And, Mr. Speaker, I will give credit where

credit is due, it was the government led by Jean Chrtien that brought in

Government of Mulroney was not prepared to do it. Now, Mr. Speaker, I make no

suggestion that it is a panacea for all of the problems. I know the solution did

not create one additional job in this Province, not one additional job did that

issue create because we are not out there fishing juvenile turbot.

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I understand, Mr. Speaker, I am going to

try and wind up but with the convoluted question I have to try and deal with the

credit, they tried their very best to deal with a difficult issue in difficult

circumstances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the Premier,

Prime Minister Chrtien squandered the political advantage he sees and he

squandered our fish in the process.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier, is the

Premier aware of the likelihood that the federal government is about to add

insult to injury by going to the NAFO meeting in Toronto later this week and

making further concessions to the Spanish by giving up more of Canada's paltry

turbot quota? Is the Premier going to remain silent in the face of this further

indignity to Newfoundland?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the

Opposition would be honest and frank enough with the people of this Province to

tell the people whether she prefers the action of Jean Chrtien or the actions

of Brian Mulroney!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would have to concede that Mr. Tobin and Mr. Chrtien have

done a masterful job of managing PR, however, as the members opposite pound

their desks they are doing an abysmal job of managing our fish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: I ask the Premier, isn't the Premier afraid

that any groundfish fishery on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks will put

undue pressure on the resource and jeopardize the chances for recovery? Why

isn't the Premier calling for a total shut down of the groundfish fishery

outside the 200-mile limit to give the resource a chance to recover?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am not quite sure where the Opposition

Leader has been. I have stated in the House, I have written to Mr. Tobin, I have

spoken publicly on the issue, I asked him not to fish the Canadian portion of

the turbot quota. Don't fish it, give the stocks a chance to recover, inside or

outside the 200-mile limit. Don't fish it, and do everything you possibly can to

prevent anybody else, Spanish or Portuguese from fishing it. That is what I

The Leader of the Opposition either genuinely doesn't know,

isn't aware of the reality, or is clearly misstating the reality.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier, why is he going along with Canada handing

over Canada's quota to Spain? Why is the Premier not kicking up a fuss as the

Federal Government gets set to go to the NAFO meeting in Toronto this week to

give away more of Canada's paltry turbot quota to the Spanish?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is easy to answer. None of what she

said is true. Not one single word is accurate or true, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is true!

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some months ago, it came up as a result of a government

initiative out in Central\Northeast Newfoundland that a government service

centre was going to be set up in the general area, and I know a number of

communities prepared briefs to put before government to have their community

become the centre for one-stop shopping for certain government services. The

bottom line is that, in the general region, even though a lot of people applied,

most people thought that the game was down to Grand Falls-Windsor or Gander.

I ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs why

the government chose Gander over Grand Falls-Windsor?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: It is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, if you asked

the people in Grand Falls or asked the people in Gander. I met with both groups

and explained, especially to the people in Grand Falls. The reason why we went

to Gander was because of the movement of people. If we had to go to Grand Falls

there would have been more people displaced in the Gander area than there would

in Grand Falls, so we looked at what would be the best option, and in this

particular case the best option was to leave Crown lands where it is right now,

in Gander, which means that five people have to stay in Gander.

I spoke to the council in Grand Falls and I explained to them

that the difference in the two offices would basically be one, if possibly two

people. The Gander office will have approximately twenty people working there

and the Grand Falls office will have approximately eighteen. We are trying to

accommodate those people who have to travel long distances in Central

Newfoundland to work for the government. Now, we are doing that basically to

satisfy those people and at the same time trying to keep our Crown Lands

Division together in one area in Gander.

That was basically the reason, and to be honest about it, up

until now I felt that the people of Grand Falls and Gander were satisfied with

that solution. In fact, the people of Grand Falls have told me that they are

going to let the two offices open up, and assess it after a number of months and

come back, and I've offered to sit down with them at a later date, and if there

are any problems with it try to correct the problems.

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

Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I find the minister's rationale somewhat curious. The Town

Council of Grand Falls - Windsor submitted a proposal to government and a map

showing the region covered and obviously Grand Falls - Windsor was in the middle

of the area concerned, midway between the service centre at Corner Brook and the

other service centre in Clarenville. I ask the minister, is service to the

general public the prime consideration that he is talking about, or was the

political stripe of the two communities involved?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing I don't

represent either Gander or Grand Falls because I guess you would have definitely

a reason then to accuse me of playing political patronage.

Let me say to the hon. member that Mr. Baker or the past

Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Grand Falls, did not at any time lobby

me one way or the other as to where that particular office should go. I

appreciated the fact that they didn't. It was done based on evaluation, done by

people in my department and a number of other people in the Central Newfoundland

area. We felt that at the time the Gander office was the best place to put the

regional office. Now, even though the Gander office is called the regional

office, because of the numbers of people who will be working in the Grand Falls

office and compared to the Gander office, I guess basically, you could say that

we have two regional offices in Central Newfoundland. And we are going to

maintain those two regional offices in Central Newfoundland.

For any member of this House to accuse me or to suggest that

we did it because of political stripe, then I would suggest that if I did it

because of political stripe, it was done for the PCs in Grand Falls.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Health. Yesterday, my colleague, the Member for Grand Bank, and I,

together with a delegation from the Burin Peninsula, met with the minister

regarding a crisis situation in health care which has developed during the past

few months on the peninsula.

First there was the resignation of an obstetrician, which

means that all women now ready to give birth have to be transferred by ambulance

to St. John's. That is the best they can offer that new facility. Now the Burin

Peninsula health care centre is without an anaesthesiologist. This is totally

unacceptable, particularly when patients are waiting to have surgery and know

the day before that that the surgery has been cancelled. I would like to ask the

minister if there is anything he can do or will do to prevent this from

happening?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

question.

Last night I did meet with a delegation of mayors and

councillors, along with members of the Burin Peninsula Health Care Board and the

two representatives from the Burin Peninsula, political representatives. We had

a lengthy discussion about health care generally on the Peninsula, about some of

the temporary gaps in services that have occurred over the last month or so with

respect to obstetrician and gynaecology backup service. We talked about the

anaesthetist being away for the next four days, and there was a good exchange

and a lot of ideas put forward as to some possible solutions. I had the

opportunity to share with them as well some of the long-term initiatives that we

have ongoing to try and address the rural physician problems generally in

Newfoundland.

It was not by coincidence, I might say also, in fact I was

unaware that it was happening, but just down the hall in the other office my

deputy was meeting with Dr. David Young and the people who run the obstetrical

services at the medical school to deal with the specific problem that we were

talking about in the other office, so I can say to the hon. member that we have

a number of initiatives ongoing. We are lending substantial support to the Burin

Peninsula Health Care Board. They have, by their acknowledgement and

acknowledgement of the town council members, sufficient budgets in place to meet

the needs on a physician basis on the Peninsula, and the problem at the moment

is simply one of a gap in service caused by movement of people that happens in

rural Newfoundland and in urban Newfoundland on occasion from time to time,

physicians moving out just before others move in, and that type of thing. So we

are doing everything that is possible to be done. We are doing many things on a

long-term basis, and we are doing some things on a short-term basis to meet the

needs. I won't elaborate on them because the member already had me share these

solutions with him yesterday, and with his delegation that I was happy to meet

with.

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

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that is

little comfort for those who are awaiting surgery, or to the doctors who are

waiting to perform the surgery. It is not only like the minister would have us

believe, and which I was led to believe as well, that this problem was for the

next four days.

Last Wednesday a lady was admitted to the Burin Peninsula

health care facility to have a breast removed because of cancer. The surgery was

to be performed on Thursday, as were seven other people awaiting surgery. Last

Thursday, I say to the minister, that woman was informed that she could not have

the surgery done because there was no anaesthesiologist available to do what he

was responsible for doing. On that day this lady became very upset, as did her

family, as she also suffers from a heart condition.

Mr. Speaker, this is very, very serious. When is the minister

going to do whatever is necessary to ensure that this does not happen again, and

that this new facility provides the kind of service that it was built there to

provide in the first place?

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

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

One of the most, I guess, traumatic and unfortunate things

that does happen from time to time, not only on the Burin Peninsula but at the

Health Sciences Centre and other hospitals, is that at the last minute sometimes

surgery has to be cancelled or postponed for various reasons. We all acknowledge

that is not desirable, it is not preferable, it is traumatic, and we would

prefer that it did not have to be that way, but that is something that does

happen, and I believe the day that the member refers to, if I recall correctly

from the meeting last night, the anaesthetist happened to be sick that day.

Well, these things happen.

We are doing everything that we can do to ensure that proper

physician resources are in place and that the appropriate level of service can

always be delivered from our health care centres and our hospitals in the

Province, and to suggest that we are not doing everything is either denying the

facts and the reality that the hon. member knows exists, or else he just does

not want to accept the facts, having acknowledged them.

Thank you.

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

for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the minister is

doing very much to alleviate the problem. When you talk about services at the

health care centre or other places that had to be cancelled it was because of

emergencies, not because there was no anaesthetist available to do what is

necessary, that is the problem. The specialists on the Burin Peninsula have been

cut by over 50 per cent, the number are not down there that were down there a

few years ago.

Mr. Speaker, the minister said a few minutes ago that he

shared with us a long term solution he had for these problems. One of the issues

he raised, Mr. Speaker, that he was going to provide incentives for people who

served for two years in rural Newfoundland and he mentioned that there were

three different groupings. I would like to ask the minister which grouping

includes Burin? Mr. Speaker, Burin is certainly not included in any list that I

have. I don't think the minister intentionally misled the people last night into

believing that Burin was part of a grouping. So I ask the minister now, which

group includes Burin - as he made reference to last night and again today - and

if Burin is not included then why did he tell the delegation that Burin was and

if they are not included, why are they not included?

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

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

The rural physician incentive package that we introduced a

couple of months ago broke down rural Newfoundland, as best we could define

rural Newfoundland, into three grouping areas. I guess they could be referred to

generally as very remote, remote and somewhat remote. I don't have the list in

front of me so I can't have -

MR. TOBIN: Well I have and Burin is not on the list.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Well probably you should ask a question

to which you don't have the answer and stop wasting my time on questions to

which you have the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I am saying to the hon. member I don't

have the list in front me and I cannot tell him if Burin is in either one of

those three categories or which one in fact they are in but I can tell the

member this, generally speaking rural Newfoundland has been covered off. If by

chance Burin is determined not to be of sufficient rurality to get on the list

then that is either a question of misdiagnosis of where they are in rural

Newfoundland or in fact not being appropriate to be on the list period. I will

check on the list and I will tell you if they are on the list but you already

know, you said. So what are you asking the question for, get up and tell us?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister the question

because of what you told the delegation yesterday evening. Now if Burin is not

on the list why did you lie to the delegation yesterday evening?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member cannot use a word like, `lie' in the House. I

would call on him to retract, withdraw.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly withdraw the

word, Mr. Speaker, if it is unparliamentary and apologize to the House for

saying so and I apologize for getting carried away but this is a very important

issue to me.

Why did the minister, Mr. Speaker, tell the people yesterday

that the answer to their long term problem is because they were going to be

grouped into this and now he says he does not know whether they are in it or

not. Why did he not tell the people of the Burin Peninsula yesterday evening

that they were not included in this grouping?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, people on the Burin

Peninsula yesterday and I were discussing initiatives that we have taken to

address rural physician problems in Newfoundland, all of Newfoundland and

Labrador. One of the initiatives that I alluded to that we had put forward was

to make provision, incentive bonuses for physicians in rural Newfoundland that

would qualify if they stayed for a certain length of time. At no time during the

meeting, Mr. Speaker, did I say to the people of Burin: You are in

Section A, B

or C or you are not on the list at all. We were talking generally about

initiatives that the government is taking to help in rural Newfoundland and I

stand by what I told the group.

I think the hon. member, if he was completely honest, should

also acknowledge that I never did say specifically Burin is on the list in any

place but if Burin is of sufficient rurality to go on the list, I can have that

revisited. It is not the end of the world because there are eight or ten names

on a list and if they should go on the list because of a demonstration of

circumstance that they are suffering rurally because they are in such a rural

nature then we can probably put them on the list. I wish the hon. member would

take a responsible and a positive approach to the thing rather than trying to be

negative about it all the time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will entertain another question from the hon. the Member

for Ferryland.

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

direct a question to the acting Minister of Justice.

Last week we saw the unfortunate incidence of a child dying

at the Janeway Hospital after being sent home on two occasions on two previous

days. Now over the past few years there have been other incidents of a similar

nature. At present the report of such deaths are only received by authorities

sometimes long after a person's death. Will the minister confirm if his

department has had draft legislation in its possession for the past several

years to establish a medical examiner for this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can confirm, Mr. Speaker, that the

department is seriously considering, and not only considering, it has been under

substantial review, and we are proposing to bring forward legislation that will

deal with the issue; it is not quite ready yet. Hopefully, it might be ready for

the Fall session.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are thousands of deaths in hospitals each year now and

the majority of those are natural occurrences.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, thousands, almost 4,000, I think, the

past year, according to the forensic pathologist, in the Province, in hospitals.

It is not confined to this Province, I say to the Government House Leader, but

some instances occur each year where investigation into the circumstances

surrounding the deaths are warranted.

Now, the presence of a medical examiner can uncover problems

in the delivery of health care which can benefit others in the future by

ensuring we have a better health care system, otherwise, what motivation is

there to improve? So I ask the minister, will he commit now to introducing

legislation into the Fall session of the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct some

of the exaggeration lest anybody believe that there are thousands of such deaths

in the hospitals of this Province in a year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, he did; he did.

PREMIER WELLS: Well, I don't want the implication to be

there. I mean, people who become ill frequently die in hospital; they have heart

attacks, they don't survive surgery for a variety of reasons. Now, Mr. Speaker,

we have had, for a very long time, a normal process in this Province, where

deaths that occur that require examination have a magisterial or judicial

inquiry, as it is now called, conducted. For all of the prior seventeen years

that the former Administration was there, that was the case.

Now, in the last few years, we have been looking at the

possibility of bringing in a medical examiner.

MS. VERGE: Six years? It's awfully slow.

PREMIER WELLS: Well, if it comes in this Fall, it is

still going to be three times as fast as seventeen years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, unless I am greatly mistaken,

I said in answer to the first question, that I expected the legislation could

probably be ready for consideration by the Fall. The answer remains the same as

it was a few minutes earlier.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are also for the Premier.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Premier said in the media that he

was not satisfied with the progress being made for the 1997 celebration by the

John Cabot 500 Anniversary Corporation. He said he has concerns that government

was looking into. Mr. Speaker, the Premier said that his comments are in no way

a negative reflection on the terrific volunteer effort being put into the

corporation.

I would like to ask the Premier today, if his concerns are

not with the volunteers, then, are his concerns with the performance of the paid

staff?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't announce yesterday

that I had concerns. The news media had a scrum outside the House and one of the

news reporters asked me how matters were going with the Cabot Corporation and

whether we were satisfied with the way in which everything was proceeding. I

said: No, we were not totally satisfied, and for the last four to six weeks, we

have been taking a detailed look at how the matter has been handled, the level

of accountability - people may recall that some time ago a significant issue was

created when the chairman of the corporation indicated to the newspaper of which

he also happened to be publisher, that he was not prepared to give them

information and questions of accountability have arisen and so on.

We weren't happy with the way the matter was set up in the

first place. We would have preferred another course but we were one of two

governments at the time and we couldn't absolutely dictate the order of things.

We feel now that there is justification for some adjustment, but I wanted to

emphasize, lest anybody get the wrong impression, there is a lot of people out

there who are contributing volunteer time to this endeavour, who are making a

terrific contribution and I want to acknowledge that, and I don't want anybody

to infer from the remarks that I made, in an honest answer to a newsperson, any

concern or any criticism of the volunteer effort.

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

Mary's -The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For months now, the Opposition has been pushing for the John

Cabot 500 Corporation to be accountable to the public. After all, millions of

taxpayers' dollars are being spent by this organization. They refused to release

expense accounts, refused to release detailed information in any way.

I tell the Premier, we have an organization with members who

are trying to compete with the Harlem Globetrotters. I would like to ask the

Premier, does he have a handle on the millions that are being spent, and doesn't

he believe that it would be only fair to the people of Newfoundland that this

organization throw away their veil of secrecy and become publicly accountable?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not prepared to account

for the Harlem Globetrotters in any forum. I'm not quite sure how they got into

the act. Let me say to the House that the government is determined there will be

full accountability by the Cabot Corporation, public accountability because it

is public funds - public accountability through the government, through this

House. That is where the accountability has to be, and we have to make the

adjustments that are necessary to see it.

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

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. This

morning, I was informed by thirty, maybe up to sixty, cutters on the Baie Verte

Peninsula who work with contractors for Kruger, that they will not be rehired

until September this year. Usually they are hired by June. Those cutters have

now been informed that they will be replaced by mechanical harvesters. To make

matters worse, those same workers, because of the changes to UI, will not be

eligible for UI until September. So they will not work this summer and they will

not be eligible for UI after June. Is the minister aware of that, and what is he

planning on doing about that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, no, I'm not aware of it. I'm

assuming this must be some contractors who are cutting for a paper company and

hire people. I'm not aware of it. It has nothing to do with my department,

certainly no contracts related to my department. This morning, I approved two

more contracts for silviculture. The press release is going out. We are doing

everything we can to get people back to work.

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

Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thought I was

talking to the minister who is responsible for forestry. These are cutters on

the Baie Verte Peninsula who have been working for the past fourteen years,

they've said, who have been called back to work by June, been told just a couple

of days ago that they will not be called back this year because of mechanical

harvesters being used by Kruger. Now, on top of all of that, we also have the UI

changes which are going to affect these people now by making them ineligible for

UI. Is there an extension possibility for UI? What is going to happen with these

workers on the Baie Verte Peninsula?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, Kruger or Corner Brook Pulp and

Paper are free to do what they wish to do with their contractors. I have nothing

to do with it.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I guess -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with

Section 5(8) of the

Internal Economy Commission act, I hereby table the report for the 1994-1995

fiscal year of the Commission of Internal Economy.

The hon. the Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Following the annual report of the Commissioner of Members'

Interest in 1993-1994 there were a number of points - in fact, there were eight

points in his report - which were raised. A Select Committee of the House was

struck to deal with these eight particular points that were mentioned. The

Committee has met and dealt with that, and today I would like to present the

report to the House.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I would like to table the Workers' Compensation

Commission 1994 annual report. There is one very significant detail in this

report, that from 1993 to 1994 there are 705 new employers in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I believe I'm representing

(inaudible) when I say there is a consensus that we will deal first with Motion

No. 4 which stands in my name and which I anticipate would be debated for a very

short period of time. It is simply a motion to set up a Select Committee of the

House. Then once we have dealt with that we will go on to deal in this order

with Order No. 14, Order No. 16, Order No. 18, and then we will see where we get

to at that point in the day. I wonder if we could first of all call Motion No. 4

which stands in my name.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 4.

The hon. Government House Leader. It is moved and seconded as

on the Order Paper.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to say very

much in support of this motion because I believe the motion speaks for itself.

It seeks the approval of the House to constitute a Select Committee and sets out

the terms of reference for that Select Committee. It would be chaired by my

friend for Bonavista North and the members would be, my friend for Humber Valley

and my friend for Trinity North. They would be charged with an enquiry into the

desirability, the practicability, and the utility of a no-fault insurance

system.

Now, members I know are sufficiently familiar with this that

I do not need to go into it, and thereby reveal the fact that I am not terribly

familiar with it, but basically a no-fault insurance system would replace the

present system whereby a person injured in an automobile accident gets

compensation with another system much like the one we use for Workers'

Compensation. That is a form of no-fault system. Now, one can make arguments for

and against, and rather than taking a position on that the government has

decided we should ask the House to appoint a Select Committee, and the committee

would be at liberty to hold meetings, receive briefs, engage in discussion with

members of the public, formally or informally, as the committee should decide,

and then in due course report back to the House and when we get their report we

will see where the matter goes from there.

The only thing I would add, Mr. Speaker, is there is a

typographical error in the motion as it is on the Order Paper which probably

came from the way which I read it yesterday. It was late in the day. It now

reads that the Members for Bonavista North, Humber Valley and Trinity North are

hereby appointed. I suggest, in correct drafting style, I should have said, be,

and they are hereby appointed.

With that said, Sir, I move the motion. I believe the members

of the committee are all members whose interest is obvious, whose qualifications

are obvious and we would benefit greatly from their considered advice on these

important matters.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there further speakers on the motion?

Is the House ready for the question?

Motion carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Order No. 14.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Pension Benefits Act." (Bill No. 18)

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a fairly simple amendment to the Pension Benefits Act

which is very important to a group of people right now, and it is important in

another sense. We are in the process of doing a complete evaluation of the

Pension Benefits Act. It has not been amended for quite some time and we have

had officials looking at the Pensions Acts in all other provinces across the

country, Pension Benefits Acts, and our act has fallen seriously behind the

times in the way it is written and what it allows, so I intend in the fall to

have ready a larger bill dealing with many more amendments to the Pension

Benefits Act.

However, that takes time. We would need to give it to a

committee. A Legislative Review Committee would have a look at it and by the

time we had our discussion in the fall this takes time, and I do not know when

it would get through this House. However there is one problem that I would like

to correct right now, and very simply it is to allow retiring employees access

to life income fund arrangements.

Normally when an employee retires there are a couple of

things that happen to investments they have. If it is portable they can put it

into some other pension plan or they can purchase an annuity and then that

annuity provides them with income. They can do this with their pension

investments, their RSPs. There is one other option that is given in other

provinces, and until this point in time it has not become sort of important for

us to deal with this issue, and I could have left it until the fall. It is the

option of another retirement arrangement called Life Income Funds. Essentially

what it allows is, it allows the individual to keep their pension investment for

one year before a decision has to be made as to what to do with it - it gives

them a year's grace - and during that year they can draw down 10 per cent so

that they have an income stream. Essentially that is what this does.

It became important in the recent bankruptcy of Confederation

Life. There were some employees, recently retired employees of the City of

Corner Brook particularly, who had investments with Confederation Life, and the

trustee in bankruptcy really had to deal with this situation, and the trustee

was going to discount the amount that the employees had invested.

The employees quite rightly indicated that in any other

province in Canada they would be allowed to wait, to make arrangements, and in

the interim draw down 10 per cent, and in the interim allow their investment to

become more mature so that when they eventually made an arrangement a year down

the road they would get a larger income stream, a larger pension payment.

Mr. Speaker, this is a normal thing that is done in the other

provinces of Canada, and because we have not updated our Pension Benefits Act we

are behind the times here and it has worked to the disadvantage of this small

group of individuals, and it works to the disadvantage of anybody, I guess, who

retires and is forced to immediately make a decision that if they were to be

allowed to sit for a year and draw down their 10 per cent to provide the income

stream - allowed to sit for a year - they could make more definitive

arrangements and better arrangements for themselves. So this amendment simply

allows the Life Income Fund as a mechanism for an individual upon retirement to

withdraw pension investments.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to speak to the amendments to the Pension Benefits Act

in support of them. I would also like to reiterate one or two things the

minister has said in terms of our Pension Benefits Act being behind the time. In

fact, it is a very serious state of deficiency, to the great detriment of many

people. Let me give you an example, and it may well be that we have been lucky

so far not to have more than one or two disasters in terms of how people may be

affected by this. There are plenty of people in this Province who are paying

into pension plans, with no choice in many cases, in some cases where the

pension plans are not even registered with the Province.

I had occasion a couple of years ago of dealing with an

employee group who were in part of a pension plan supposed to be covered by the

Pensions Benefits Act, that was supposed to be registered in this Province, and

for fourteen years had not been registered. It was being managed outside of the

Province by a benefit consultant. It was not registered in the Province. It had

not complied with the Province's rules or laws. No one was able to have very

much in the way of control over this group. There was a very expensive set of

litigation involved in fighting over what was going to happen to this pension,

and to give you an example of the kind of money that might be involved, and a

big issue in pensions nationally has been, what happens to the surpluses? If an

employee is paying in a certain amount of money every month or every week from

his pay cheque, the employer is paying a certain amount, and the pension plan is

what is called a defined benefit plan, at some point you can decide whether

there is a surplus or whether there is an actuarially satisfactory amount of

money in the plan.

What began happening four or five or six or more years ago is

that some companies - most of them private companies - have been discovering

that there were hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions and millions of

dollars in pension plans that had been earned by the contributions and were

surplus to the requirements of making the payout. Many companies tried to grab

those funds, take them out, put them on their bottom line, pay them out to their

shareholders, or use them for other expenses. To give you an example again of

the kind of numbers that could be involved, a pension plan involving no more

than twenty-six or twenty-eight people had a surplus of $600,000 or $700,000 in

the plan. There are many questions and thorny questions but what happens if you

wind up such a plan or what happens when people retire or what happens when

people leave? I don't think this bill addresses that. This bill says you get

what they call the commuted or commutated - I am not sure which - value of the

plan which is a fancy name for what an actuary would describe as the actual

present day value of a sum of money required to produce the benefit that you are

entitled to down the road. That may well only be a portion of what is in the

plan. That may in fact only be a portion of what your contribution has

contributed to. Your contribution may have contributed an extra $15,000, $20,000

or $30,000 to a surplus and yet this legislation won't give you access to that.

The other plan holders will have the use of that if you are gone and they carry

on.

It becomes a serious matter, Mr. Speaker, when there are

divergent interests between retiring members, people who are continuing on in

the plan who may be able to use the surplus and use what is there to either

enhance their own benefits to the detriment of those who have already retired or

- I am glad to see that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is

interesting in my health but he is probably more likely interested in throwing

me off, as the Member for Green Bay suggests - but there are very serious

problems that arise.

I appreciate that the minister says it is a complicated bill

and we are going to get it soon but I think I have heard that before, not

necessarily from the minister but I have heard that from officials for the past

several years. For the past several years we just cannot wait to get this new

pensions bill before the House. Now I don't know how far it has gotten but I

think it is something that deserves a fair amount of consideration because there

are all sorts of problems that arise for people who have contributed for years

and years and years, and particularly when it comes to private pension schemes,

Mr. Speaker, they have had pretty antiquated schemes too. They have been

collecting money and adding up and quite often business managers don't know

themselves what the complications are and the consequences are for the pension

plans that they have been administering in their operations and it is not a

simple matter. In fact, it is a very complicated matter and if you don't have

proper legislation dealing with it you end up in - what I would have to say -

probably some of the most expensive legal battles that I have seen.

MR. EFFORD: You should know.

MR. HARRIS: And I should know because I was involved in a

case where if you are dealing with some of these pensions lawyers in Toronto the

costs involved are astounding and I say that as a lawyer, the costs involved are

astounding. If you want to spend $400 or $500 in legal fees talking on the

telephone for twenty minutes then that is how to do it, get involved in a fight

over pensions. That is the kind of problems that you have in dealing with these

pensions if you do not have legislation that nails it down and spells out

exactly what your rights are.

I think there is a concern, Mr. Speaker, in this Province

that our Pension Benefits Act be insisted on and applying to things going on in

this Province. We do have a lot of pension money in this Province that is not in

fact administered in this Province, it is administered in Nova Scotia, in

Halifax or in Toronto. There are a lot of union pension funds that are

administered in Halifax, in Toronto or elsewhere. Some of them are registered in

this Province and some of them are not. I think, Mr. Speaker, if we don't do a

very, very thorough job of examining that system, the kind of problems we have

had with Hiland Insurance and the kind of problems that we have had with Caribou

and the kind of problems that are lurking under the carpet somewhere, Mr.

Speaker, that if we don't take action very soon to have a thorough review of

that entire pensions system and scheme then we could be very well faced with

some serious problems with enormous consequences to individuals whose pensions

could be at risk. I know that this bill here deals with certain specific issues

and certain specific problems and yes, they should be solved and solved now.

I say to the minister, I'm not certain that it addresses the

particular and peculiar problem of one person who has written both me and I

believe the minister. I haven't been able to confirm that, although the minister

has indicated that he has been advised that it addresses his particular problem,

an individual in Corner Brook, and I don't think it is one of the city

employees' group. I think it is an individual who has a private dispute. It may

address his problem; it may not address it to his satisfaction, but that may be

a different matter.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The minister indicates that it gives him a

year to perhaps sort it out. The minister assures us that it gives us a year, by

which time the new legislation should be in. I appreciate that the minister

can't do everything immediately but I do anticipate that this will be a matter

brought forward to the House hopefully next fall for consideration by a

committee. If the bill is ready I'm sure that the committee would review it. Is

that the Social Legislation Review Committee? I hope it is, because that is the

Committee I sit on. I would certainly like to add my limited experience and

expertise in pensions to looking at the legislation because I think it is

something that does need attention. If the Committee can have it over the summer

to examine the intricacies of it I would think it would certainly be a good full

summer's work to have a look at it, and hopefully we will be able to review it

in detail by the fall.

It is an important matter. People's pensions, Mr. Speaker,

are as important as their salaries. It represents their income for retirement

and these private pensions are becoming more and more important. I would like to

see some legislation that would guarantee that whatever surpluses are sitting in

these funds be used to enhance the benefits. I don't think that if surpluses

have been built up over the years for one reason and another - some of the

weakest pensions are these defined pension benefits. I've heard of people

working for companies - I won't name particular companies because I haven't got

my facts totally right - but somebody working for a company for thirty years or

forty years and walking away with a pension of $80 and $90 a month, or $100 a

month. A pathetic pension from a company that they have contributed to for many

years.

At the same time, that same pension fund could have a surplus

of hundreds of thousands of dollars. What we need to do is if there are pension

funds with surpluses in them we ought to make sure that those surpluses stay in

those funds and are used to enhance the benefits of those in receipt of pensions

or enhance the benefits of those who are part of the working group. It is

important, and it is one of those things that individual members of this House

can make a significant contribution to by using the benefit of their widespread

knowledge of examples and experience in dealing with individuals with problems

to address specific instances and improve legislation that is brought forward

through the normal system.

I conclude by saying that I appreciate the minister's concern

in bringing forth this legislation now, even though it is a piecemeal approach

to some specific problems. It will help this individual employee group in Corner

Brook. It will allow individuals who are separating from their employer to have

some portability with their existing benefits, to move it to another plan, and

it will give individuals an opportunity to have a one-year breathing space so

that they can decide what is the best option for them in terms of enhancing

their retirement income or post-employment income, as it may happen to be in a

particular circumstance.

In saying that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the

legislation.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This being a finance

bill I thought I would take advantage of the situation and make a few general

comments, insofar as we appear to be winding down in this particular session,

relatively early, and I thought, for the record, it should be stated that this

is a somewhat curious turn of events; we are going through a Pensions bill here

now, there are a couple of other bills we dealt with yesterday and we will

probably do one or two others today and tomorrow, and that will be it, and one

has to wonder, Mr. Speaker, wherein lies the problem?

The Order Paper for the House of Assembly has a list of

bills. There are a number of very important issues before this Assembly and

before the body politic in terms of the business of the Province, yet the

government appears to be in somewhat of an all- fired haste to evacuate this

Chamber and to put copper fasteners, I guess, on what has been a somewhat

turbulent Spring session of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the Open Line this morning

and there was a guest on from the Dockyard workers' union, who was fielding

calls, and one of them called in to the effect that the government wants out and

that they are trying to gloss everything over, smooth everything over, make

everything look good and pretty, because the Premier is going to soon retire.

That may be the case, Mr. Speaker, but I don't see any need for this Assembly to

be closing right now just because the Liberal Party has some internal business

to attend to. Our party, earlier in the Winter and late Spring, Mr. Speaker,

went through a long leadership process and we managed to carry off that process

with the House of Assembly still sitting and the vast majority of members of the

House being able to attend to their duties as members in the House and in their

constituency, and at the same time, contribute whatever they chose to contribute

through the leadership convention.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you know, we get the feeling, one hears the

rumour and so on, that the Liberal Party, the party in government is about to go

through a similar process itself. Certainly, the Premier tends to take a more

cavalier attitude towards most things that are put to him in the House, with the

exception of things that are put to him regarding his relationship with the

Federal Government. The Premier was very quick today, in response to questions

from the Leader of the Opposition on the sell-out to the Spanish on the turbot

issue, to jump to the defence; the Liberal Party, indeed, was very anxious to

put a brave, positive face on what became a standing joke with regard to the

turbot fishery.

Mr. Speaker, it is passing strange to see all members of the

government, all members of the Liberal Party in this House, thump their desks

wildly in support of Mr. Tobin and the Premier, knowing full-well that after the

initial, good round at policing the Spaniards, we subsequently caved in on just

about every issue, gave them back their boat, their bonds, their nets, their

fish and now we are told that even what little fish that has been assigned to

Canada, is probably going to be negotiated away at a NAFO meeting to try to

bribe the Spaniards once again, into some sort of agreement on monitoring their

fishing activities.

Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the

antics of Mr. Tobin and, to some extent, his assistant on the wharf in New York,

our Premier, made for good theatre and the mainlanders were fooled. I had a

brief vacation during the Easter period, Mr. Speaker, and I was on the mainland

of Canada and they actually believed up there that some progress had been made

with regard to the foreign overfishing issue, not really knowing until I pointed

out to them, that after an initial burst of public relations, essentially the

Canadian Government led by the Prime Minister, Mr. Tobin, and with the avid

support of the Premier and the provincial Liberal Party, basically sold out on

the issue. They made a good start but they quickly lost heart and caved in on

all fronts, and appear to be continuing to cave in as the matters are negotiated

at NAFO meetings.

Mr. Speaker, another matter that has come before this House

and has been the source of considerable debate and controversy over the last

little while is the fate of the St. John's Dockyard. I guess, to use a phrase,

it has been like pulling teeth. It is a very difficult task to perform but we

manage to extract, if you pardon the verb, from the government, some reaction

with regard to the Dockyard, but only after considerable prodding, and

considerable questioning.

This government basically knew, as did a lot of people on the

street, that the days of the St. John's Dockyard were numbered and basically,

again, went into the pretence of caring and went into the pretence of acting

only after considerable pressure from the Opposition Party, from my colleague,

the Member for Kilbride, the Opposition Leader, and so on.

Mr. Speaker, what we saw yesterday in the news has been

nothing short of pitiful. What we have is a Liberal Party that wants out of this

Assembly, either to do its own thing with regard to a leadership convention or

to minimize the negative publicity that might accrue to it in terms of the Grand

Falls by-election. What we have is a Liberal Party that wants out badly, wants

out quickly, and wants things to go smoothly for the next little while,

certainly for the month of June while we still have a by-election on the go in

Central Newfoundland.

The St. John's Dockyard - the Premier is talking in general

terms: we would like to give the dockyard eighteen months to two years to see if

it can get its act together. We are asking the Federal Government to install new

equipment and to put the yard up and running on a footing that will allow it to

compete and so on - which is all well and good, Mr. Speaker. No one can argue

with the validity of the need for improvements at the yard in terms of its

capital equipment, but the Premier having said that, all the news carried last

night - and this is crucial that people understand - what the news carried last

night was that Mr. Morrison appeared to give the Dockyard about a one-month

reprieve. A couple of boat repair contracts that appeared to have been axed all

of a sudden were revived, which will allow the yard a few more weeks of work.

It will take the Provincial Government, which has been slack

on this issue, through the month of June, presumably past the by-election and

all the negative publicity that would come from the Dockyard closing in the

short to medium term. But what else do the Dockyard workers have, unless they

get an eighteen-month to two-year reprieve with some significant help from the

Federal Government and a real opportunity to compete in the ship repair markets

of the world?

Yesterday's meeting and the two boats being repaired are

relatively insignificant. What we are talking about is a few weeks of extra life

for that dockyard, unless the Federal Government comes across with a more

significant revitalization program and a more significant second chance program

for the St. John's Dockyard. But one has to be suspicious, Mr. Speaker, if the

current initiatives will carry the Liberal Party past the by-election in Grand

Falls at which time the Federal Government will very conveniently say, we took a

month to review the situation and, whoops! we don't think we can continue to

support the St. John's Dockyard.

I hope that is not the case, Mr. Speaker, but if that is the

case there are going to be a lot of very angry people, yard workers included, in

the St. John's region who will feel they have been terribly deceived with the

events of the last twenty-four hours. My colleague, the Member for Kilbride

raised concerns over and over in this Assembly and they were laughed at. He was

told he was mistaken on all fronts. Mr. Speaker, we shall see how mistaken he

was. I don't think he was mistaken at all.

Mr. Morrison was very careful on the public statements he

made yesterday and the most that was given in terms of firm commitments from

that federal Crown corporation was a few weeks or a month more of work at that

dockyard, and as I said, that will take this Provincial Government off the hook

for a month, get it into the summer vacation period, and then I have the feeling

that everything goes then, that we are into a new world, a new era, and that

somehow, closing the House early, putting the Dockyard thing off for awhile,

transferring the electoral boundaries mess - that is about the only way to

describe it - off until the Fall or some infinite future date, that sort of

thing gives you the impression that somehow the month of June is a hump that the

Liberal Party somehow has to get over, and once the Liberal Party has gotten

over that, we will be into a new period in terms of the politics and governance

of this Province of ours.

One has to wonder, Mr. Speaker, just what is going on.

Speculation is that the Premier will be retiring, and if that is the case, I

wish him well in his new life, but there is no reason for the Province, there is

no reason for the Assembly, the people's Assembly, to shut down just because the

Premier is moving on. There is no reason for the Dockyard to be toyed with just

because somehow, this Assembly has to close and somehow, the government wants to

get us over the hurdle of the next month or so.

Mr. Speaker, there is something going on here and it is not

only my suspicious mind. As I said, a gentleman called in on Open Line this

morning and he summed up what is out there on the street, that something is

going on; the Liberal Party and the Premier want to smooth things over, make

everything look clean and white and shiny, and somehow, get through this interim

period, be it the by-election in Grand Falls, a leadership change in the Liberal

Party - we are not exactly sure what it is - but somehow, the Liberal Party

wants to get through the month of June under cover of darkness, out of the light

of day, away from the scrutiny of Question Period in this House, and somehow,

things are going to be better for the people in due course. I am not at all

optimistic that is going to be the case. I think the people of the Province are

being cynically manipulated in this regard, and we shall see whether or not

those suspicions of mine bear fruit in due course.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board now

speaks he will conclude debate on the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. A. SNOW: In discussion with my colleague there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: I should have been paying more attention; I

agree with you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the two members will

probably have a little discussion after. They can probably get up and speak

publicly rather than ranting and roaring across the House and interrupting my

opportunity to speak in this debate on the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: All that glitters is not diamonds or gold.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few comments with regard

to Bill 18, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act". This particular bill was

brought in by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to address a specific

problem with pensions, and it does address it and I do support the bill to

correct the specific problem for a specific pension in this particular area, but

this Province has a tremendous pension problem that has to be addressed, a $2.5

billion problem.

The minister mentioned that what he was going to do was bring

in a bill later on in the Fall. I am surprised that this was so important an

issue that the minister had called in unions to warn them what he was going to

do, has talked to the teachers and threatened them, what he was going to do with

their pension plan, and yet we have ample time for him to present this

particular bill here. He has known what the problem is. He hasn't addressed the

problem. He hasn't addressed the tremendous unfunded liability of the pension

plans in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and this has caused, I believe, serious

problems with regard to our debt management of the Province. We have to be aware

of the problems associated with this unfunded liability of the pension plans of

the Province.

Because this government hasn't dealt with the problem of the

unfunded liability, I think it is costing this Province untold millions of

dollars in additional expenses. We should be addressing this problem, we have to

address it.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier said it was in this agenda for

this session.

MR. A. SNOW: It is supposed to be. He did say it was

going to be addressed in this session, and I guess it probably will be in this

session, but it will be the Fall sitting.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, this winter. He said it was going to be

brought to the House this Spring.

MR. A. SNOW: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, while they do appear to

be doing something, they are not really solving the problem, and that is, of

course, one of the hallmarks of this particular government. They just want to

appear to be doing things rather than actually doing things. That is exactly why

this government is getting the ratings from business leaders such as they are

getting. That is exactly why this government is in such political trouble, it is

that they are only doing PR. They are only concerned about image, that is all.

They are not concerned about the actual problem. They don't attempt to clean up

the problem with the pension plan. They just want to do something that glosses

over it, a veneer, smoke and mirrors, that's all it is.

The people of this Province are sick and tired of the

approach that this particular government have. They have to recognize that we

have this unfunded liability and correct the problem, and they are not

addressing it. And, Mr. Speaker, this is affecting our credit ratings, and I'm

sure the lending agencies would want us to correct this problem. We have to

correct it. We have to ensure, as my hon. colleague, the Member for St. John's

East mentioned earlier, with what has occurred with Hiland Insurance and

Confederation Life, that people who have contributed to these plans, the two

insurance plans, have thirty years or thirty-five of work, of their life, and

expect to have some type of pension, some type of remuneration when they retire,

that it is secure.

We have a responsibility to the employees who are going to be

involved, these individuals, because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: A very good pension plan, a tremendous

pension plan. Mr. Speaker, this government has to address this problem. While I

support this particular bill, I don't support what they are attempting to do,

gloss over it. I think they are going to have to address this problem more

closely and hopefully it will be addressed in the Fall, but I was hoping that it

could be done in this sitting of the Legislature rather than the Fall sitting;

and so were the people of the Province hoping that it could be done.

It being a finance bill, we get the opportunity to speak of

other issues, all other financial issues in the Province. The government have a

responsibility to this Province. I believe if they managed the financial affairs

and took a more active role in doing certain things, we wouldn't have to be

delaying. Because the only reason why they are addressing this problem, I

believe, is the fact that they know they have more of a liability there and they

don't want to address that financial liability that they do have. They are just

putting it off, and they are going to continue to put it off, unless, of course,

they have a hidden agenda. They don't want to do it now because they want to get

out of the House, doing some political damage control. That is what they are

possibly doing, damage control now. This is all they are going to be doing. They

want to get out of the House and get on with the selection of delegates for the

leadership and select the next temporary premier of this Province.

Because it is only going to be temporary, if the present

Premier - when he retires and they select the temporary premier. Because he or

she will only be there for a short period of time, and then the people will

throw them out - just like they are going to do with the NDP in Ontario. They

are throwing them out of office. When they called the election they were 52 per

cent in the polls. Recently, we see that the polls have changed now, where the

Tories have pulled ahead of the Liberals in Ontario and they are into a deep

slide. The NDP are into a deep slide and I think you are going to see a similar

type of approach here in this Province when they call an election.

MR. SULLIVAN: An avalanche landed on the NDP two years

ago, they were in a avalanche.

MR. A. SNOW: They are going to be buried, Mr. Speaker, my

colleague, the Member for Ferryland says. The NDP are going to be buried by an

avalanche of Tory support in Ontario and we are going to see a similar type of

thing occur here unless this government changes its attitude and discontinues

the arrogant way they treat people in this Province, Mr. Speaker. They have to

discontinue this method of trying to - this `father knows best' attitude. I know

better then you and you have to listen to me. You are all wrong, I am right.

That attitude, Mr. Speaker, has to stop, whether it is in industrial development

or whether it is in the development of tourism in this Province.

I have had the opportunity of going out and hunting here on

the Island portion of the Province. We don't have much of a forest industry in

Western Labrador but I have had the opportunity of seeing what the forest

industry has done to some of the areas I have visited over the last five or six

years in hunting and seeing the change in harvesting procedures, Mr. Speaker -

in one specific area I have been, in Weir's Pond, I had the opportunity to go

moose hunting there for a couple of years. I went there five years ago hunting

successfully and I successfully acquired a moose. I shot a moose there. It was a

tremendous hunting trip in a beautiful part of the country, Mr. Speaker, Weir's

Pond, that is out near Carmanville.

I went back to the same area, I guess about two or three

years later, and the harvesters had been in there getting pulp wood out, Mr.

Speaker, and I couldn't believe the devastation that these machines did to the

area. Mr. Speaker, albeit having said that, I was successful in getting a moose

on my second trip, too. That is probably more to do with the proficiency of my

hunting, of course, rather than the ability of this government to control what

the harvesters are doing to the environment.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is no trouble to see a moose now. A

moose in there is easy to see, there are no trees.

MR. A. SNOW: That is true but, Mr. Speaker, I only

mention this because again, this issue is being raised today, the issue of

harvesters, the method of harvesting and the lack of control of this government

to protect the environment. I say this because I am sure that - I was amazed, I

was shocked when I saw the devastation that these harvesters are doing. I hadn't

witnessed it before because being in the part of Labrador where I live, we don't

have a tremendous forest industry. So we don't have this type of damage being

done to the forest.

Mr. Speaker, the government should address this particular

problem, they are going to have to. I believe if they don't do it we are going

to have - if we don't get into looking after the environment in a silviculture

program and addressing the problem with respect to the aesthetics, I think our

tourism industry will suffer, undoubtedly, and that will cause economic

problems. The lack of silviculture will cause economic problems down the road

because of the lack of a resource, Mr. Speaker. We have seen reports being

submitted -

MR. ROBERTS: Come on, now (inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: It is, I know. Mr. Speaker, the Government

House Leader wants me to say something substantial.

Mr. Speaker, this government is going to have to address the

problems in a substantial manner rather than the way that they have been

addressing the problems in this Province. They have to give up the idea that you

can fix the health problem by getting rid of the few doctors and hiring another

person in public relations, or cutting back on hospital beds and getting more

advertisements about how the quality of life has to change and we have to change

our lifestyles. That doesn't work, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: I would probably like to take the minister

up on that particular challenge, Mr. Speaker, but anyway, with those few

comments, I thank you.

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

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

I just want to make a few points, the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board is gone but on "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act"; I

understand in my discussions with him, that there is a more wholesale review

coming maybe the fall or next spring in terms of the overall pension act.

Some of the questions that arise out of these amendments, and

I understand that it was made for a particular case in Corner Brook arising out

of the collapse of Confederation Life, but it says in

section (

d) this

section

enables the commuted value to be transferred to another pension plan which deals

with the portability of pensions; and on that point I would just like to raise

some questions, more so for the record than for anything else, that there are

many employees in Newfoundland and Labrador today, many people who work with

varied contractors, construction contractors, they could work with seven or

eight or nine in a particular season and the question with that comes, if you

are a member of a trade union for example, what happens?

Many of their pension plans are paid into an international

pension plan which is administered outside the Province and in many cases, Mr.

Speaker, administered outside the country, outside Canada. Now the question is

this: once a member is vested, do these amendments apply to international

pension funds, such as the operating engineers or the labourers union or NAPE or

CUPE or whatever the case may be, does it allow or will it allow or will some of

the wholesale review, more of an extensive review that is coming up, will it

allow individuals who have accumulated pensions, who have accumulated x number

of dollars, say $50,000 over a ten or fifteen-year period in some international

pension fund, which they will not see until they are sixty-five, but the pension

fund or the organization or group who owns the pension fund is accumulating

large sums of money on the backs of many workers in the Province, will that

allow this person to take his or her contributions which may have been

accumulated from several employers throughout the Province over a period of

several months each year, but invested through and then becomes vested at some

point, does it allow that person to access their benefits from that pension

fund, that international pension fund, which is administered for the most part

outside the Province and in many cases outside Canada, does it allow that

employee to take that pension and their contributions into it and to put it into

their own self-directed plan? A legitimate question some people have asked me

about and I mean, it is a concern of many people.

In terms of another retirement arrangement, LIF, Life

Investment Fund, this amendment calls for the creation, is that correct, I ask

the minister, does it call for the creation for a Life Investment Fund? Again, I

guess it goes back to some of the questions I have asked. Now there are many I

would think literally, probably 10,000 to 12,000 people who are in the boat that

I have just described, who are part of large, international unions, locals

associated with large, international unions who have accumulated significant

amounts of money from working in this Province and their pensions are taken

outside, administered outside the country. I mean work is scarce even in good

times for some of these people and they don't have the luxury of a guaranteed

amount of money going in every week or every month for a period of fifteen or

twenty years, so the question is, does this arrangement, these amendments allow

for them to take care of that? I don't know. Maybe the minister can respond to

that when he gets up.

Section (

e) says: This

section enables regulations to be

relating to the commuted value. Interesting point, but what really are the

ramifications of that section? If we take money from one section, say

Confederation Life in dealing with the case in Corner Brook - does the amendment

allow people to deal with the same arrangement as was done with that previous

company that they were dealing with, or does it allow greater flexibility?

Those are some of the issues that I question on this specific

amendment. I want to make a couple of general observations that the minister has

raised and that we all must take very seriously. That deals with the unfunded

liability in terms of our pensions, a pension that government is responsible for

administering, et cetera.

At some point, as the minister has indicated, we are going to

have to deal with that very seriously. All of us, not just legislators, but

everyone in this Province. Because if we don't the unfunded liability portion of

our pensions will reach a point in the very near future that our ability to make

decisions dealing with the pension fund will be taken away from us altogether.

Our ability to determine what our own direction will be or to plan will be taken

away from us altogether. If we don't deal with it very soon the decisions about

the unfunded liability portion of pensions and the wholesale review that the

minister has talked about will be made for us, not by us, and that is a thought

that as a member of this House I wouldn't want to see and I don't look forward

to.

With that I would just like to ask the minister if he can

deal with some of the concerns that are raised. Because I think there is an

issue there that at some point the government of this Province must look at. And

look at the excess of capital that really is leaving this Province in some ways

- this is one way that it is leaving - and look at ways and means by which we

can at least get a greater value for the capital that we raise here in forms of

pensions with contractors that leave and exit this Province and this country

that necessarily do not provide any long-term or lasting benefit to us. Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A number of

interesting issues have been raised. First of all, let me deal with the one that

was not related to this particular bill.

I believe the Member for Green Bay indicated that he was very

concerned about the fact that we have all the legislation on the Order Paper and

we are not dealing with it all. I just simply want to make the comment that when

we became the government of this Province we indicated to the Opposition - and

he was a member of the Opposition at the time - that each year there would be

two sessions: The spring session dealing with budgetary matters, the fall

session to be a legislative session. I've been operating under that

understanding for the last six years. I'm assuming members opposite have also

been operating with that understanding, that the fall session is indeed the

legislative session and the spring session is the budget-monetary session. So

the answer to his question quite simply is that our legislation will all be

dealt with in the legislative session which will start this fall. When it starts

will be determined by how much legislation we have and that we need to get

through. The legislation will be done in the fall. That is the answer to that

question.

With regards to the comments that actually pertain to the

bill itself, I would like to reiterate that this bill does not do a whole lot in

itself. All it does is allow individuals who upon retirement are forced to do

something with their RRSPs, in this case I guess their investment was with

Confederation Life, and most of that was put into GCIs, or whatever it is.

Anyway, it allows them, rather than being forced to immediately annuitize their

RRSPs and immediately deal with the problem, to put it off for a while and to

draw down from their sum an amount not to exceed 10 per cent of the value to

provide an income stream so they have more time to make their arrangements.

Now essentially that is what it does. It does not deal with

the issues raised by the last member who spoke - it does not really deal with

that - but I will tell you what it does; it gives a year. Anybody who has

retired recently or is about to retire and so on, it gives them a year so they

can let their funds sit in the RRSPs. In this case, the City of Corner Brook, it

will allow the trustees for Confederation Life to hold their funds and they can

draw down an amount. During that year, this fall, there will be a complete

revision of the Pension Benefits Act, and that gets back to the question by the

Member for St. John's East. He indicates that he has had all kinds comments and

so on from politicians and bureaucrats about the reform of the Pension Benefits

Act and the fact that it always seems to be almost there, and he is right, I

suppose; he has talked to the people in the department and so on.

I would like to tell him that everything is now ready; it is

ready. We will be very shortly printing the bill, and we would hope to put it

out to the committee he sits on for examination during the summer, and if they

decide they need to have hearings and so on I guess they will, but it is a very

comprehensive series of changes to the Pension Benefits Act that will attempt to

deal in some way with these points raised by the hon. members.

I thank them first of all for their understanding that this

one thing really should be done now and not wait until the whole review. I

welcome their input during the summer, especially the Member for St. John's East

who seems to have had a lot of experience in pension matters, I would welcome

his input directly on this bill so that when we eventually go through the House

in the fall it will be the best possible series of amendments to the Pension

Benefits Act that we can come up with.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits

Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House

presently by leave. (Bill No. 18)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough,

please, to call Order 16, that is the Amendment to the Judicature Act.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Judicature Act". (Bill No. 20)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

I do not propose to speak at any length on the introduction

of this bill because it is a relatively straightforward situation. I realize

that my hon. friends opposite may have the belief - they certainly have the

suspicion; they may even have the belief - that there is an ulterior motive, but

I will deal with that in a very straightforward way. I will lay out the facts

and then my hon. friends can make their judgement, and I know they will come to

whatever conclusion they wish.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by reminding members, if I may,

that the so-called superior courts, and I believe that is the phrase used in the

Constitution Act, are controlled - not controlled, I am sorry, are constituted;

they are not controlled by anybody except themselves - are constituted by

statutes at both levels of government. One of the many unique emanations of the

Canadian federal system is the fact that superior courts are constituted by

virtue of provincial legislation and federal legislation. The provinces create

the courts. The Supreme Court of Newfoundland, the Trial Division and the Court

of Appeal, both exist by virtue of our Judicature Act, the act this amendment

seeks to amend, and we pay the staff of the court and we finance their

operations.

The appointment of judges and the creation of offices of

judges rests with the Parliament of Canada in the latter instance and the

the number of judges, or judicial positions we have, and the Governor General in

their salaries. Now I am speaking, of course, of the Superior Court Judges,

so-called. The provincial court comes under a separate statute and it is

entirely the creature - the creation of the Legislature of the Province. It is

not the creature; it is the creation.

Mr. Speaker, our Judicature Act here, which at least in this

respect has not been amended since 1986 when it was introduced by the present

Leader of the Opposition who, I believe, was the Minister of Justice at the time

that the Judicature Act was brought into the House, the present one. It provides

for two courts and establishes a number of judges in each.

Section 4 creates the

Court of Appeal and provides that there shall be a Chief Justice of Newfoundland

- parenthetically, I would add, `and Labrador' - and five so-called puisne

judges, judges who are not chief judges. The correct word is `puisne' and I

realize, to lay people, to call a judge `puisne' is perhaps a rather unusual

term of phrase.

Section 21 of the Judicature Act there is a provision that

creates a Trial Division of nineteen judges, that is the Chief Justice of the

Trial Division and eighteen puisne judges.

Section 47, if one wants to be

precise, goes on and creates provision for additional judges, so-called

supernumerary judges. Supernumerary judges are judges who have taken, by their

own choice, supernumerary status, whereby they work part-time, they are paid

part-time, and get a pension on top.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many are there?

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my hon. friend, I don't recollect

how many there are at present. It varies. I saw a notice the other day that Mr.

Justice Adams, who had been supernumerary, has now retired. I believe Mr.

Justice Noel is a supernumerary judge, Mr. Justice Kevin Barry, Mr. Justice

Soper, I think, is retired, I am not certain. But there are a small number of

judges who, from time to time, are supernumerary. I believe the former Chief

Justice Mifflin -

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Justice Morgan has retired.

MR. ROBERTS: My friend, the Member for St. John's East

tells me that Mr. Justice Morgan has now retired, and I am not sure whether

former Chief Justice Mifflin is still on the supernumerary list or whether he

has now retired. There are a relatively small number of supernumerary judges who

sit part-time and who are remunerated accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, the difficulty we seek to address with this

amendment comes from the fact that a judge is appointed, a man or a woman is

appointed a judge, and if he or she is to be a Chief Justice, he or she is

appointed as a Chief Justice, so in the present context, Chief Justice Goodridge

is appointed, not only as a judge, but as Chief Justice of Newfoundland, which

is the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal. Chief Justice Hickman is the Chief

Justice of the Trial Division and he, too, is appointed not simply as a judge

but as Chief Justice of the Trial Division.

Should the situation arise where a Chief Justice, either of

the two, wishes to step down as Chief Justice but remain a judge, there is no

way that the present act will be able to accommodate that. That is the situation

this amendment seeks to address. There is no more mystery to it that this. There

is no more behind it than that.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment before the House says in so many

words that when a Chief Justice wishes to step down from that position but

remain in office as a judge, there is an additional position created to allow

that to be done. In other words, let us assume Chief Justice Hickman wanted to

step down as Chief Justice of the Trial Division but remain as a judge, then the

effect of this amendment would be to increase the Judicature Act complement,

which is now nineteen for the Trial Division, by one, to twenty, and we are

going to be offering an amendment in Committee to make it very clear, to carry

on with my example, that when former Chief Justice, and now Mr. Justice Hickman,

in the example, retired from office, the complement of the court would revert to

nineteen. His retirement would not leave a vacancy that could then be filled by

the appointment of yet another judge. If we want to increase the court we will

come before the House and ask authority to increase the court in the usual way.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A temporary provision?

MR. ROBERTS: It is a temporary provision, I say to my

friend, the Member for Grand Bank and that is an accurate thing. The wording of

the present amendment may leave some room for argument. I don't mind saying I am

advised by the law officers of the Crown that there probably isn't any room for

the argument that it creates an extra position, but to be certain there isn't,

we will be offering an amendment at the appropriate time.

This is made possible by

Section 32 of the Judges Act of

Canada, which is the act that creates all the judges positions across the

country, and 32 (1) is the provision that is relevant here. Let me perhaps read

it to the House because it is not the sort of thing that members would have been

up last night having a look at. Here is what 32(1) says - my learned friend, the

Member for St. John's East has got it. Now, Mr. Speaker, here is what 32(1) of

the Judges Act of Canada says, `Where the Legislature of a Province...' all hon.

members may stand and take a bow at this stage, `Where the Legislature of the

Province has enacted legislation, establishing for each office of Chief Justice

of a Superior Court of the Province such additional offices of judge of that

court as are required for the purpose of this

section and a Chief Justice of

that court has notified the Minister of Justice of Canada and the Attorney

General of the Province of his election' - no gender neutrality there - `to

cease to perform the duties of Chief Justice and to perform only the duties of a

judge, the Chief Justice shall thereupon hold only the office of a judge other

than a Chief Justice of the court and shall be paid the salary annex to the

office of a judge other than a Chief Justice of that court until he reaches the

age of retirement, resigns or is removed from or otherwise ceases to hold

office.' There are some other provisions that simply expand upon the eligibility

of a man or a woman who is a Chief Justice to take advantage of 32(1).

Now, Mr. Speaker, I should add (inaudible) uncertainty, if

this amendment passes there would be created a twentieth seat in the Trial

Division and a seventh seat in the Court of Appeal. In the event a Chief Justice

wishes to step down another judge could then be appointed either as Chief

Justice or could be appointed as a puisne judge and another of the existing, the

present judges, could then be made Chief Justice of Newfoundland or Chief

Justice of the Trial Division. The spare seat would disappear when the former

Chief Justice retired.

Now, Mr. Speaker, members will probably ask why we are doing

this. Well, let me say precisely why we are doing it. We are doing it at the

request of the Judges of the Court of Appeal who have written to the government,

and I have the permission of Mr. Justice Gushue who wrote the letter to suggest

the amendment or to ask that we consider it. They have written to ask would we

consider putting it in. It is authorized by the Judges Act of Canada and a

comparable provision is found in many - I don't know if it is in all - but many

of the other Supreme Court acts across the country, the Judicature Act or by

whatever name they go.

So we are not doing anything unusual here. We are doing

something that is permitted by the Judges Act of Canada and that other provinces

have done. Now, I don't know why the court wants to do this and it is not for me

to speculate but I will say that in the present circumstances it would be, in

the judgement of the government, appropriate to make this option available to

the present Chief Justice of Newfoundland and the present Chief Justice of the

Trial Division. I have no idea whether either gentleman is the least bit

interested in making advantage of this or not. I have not asked them and I have

not been told. It is no business of mine and I don't think it is any business of

the House, with respect, but in our judgement it is appropriate in the present

situation to make the option available and that is why we are bringing the bill

before the House at this stage. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no more to it than

that. I have explained what the bill does, I have explained the authority for it

and I have explained the reason why we are seeking the leave and the support of

the House to do it.

With that said, Sir, I will move the bill be read a second

time.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There may be authority to do this, I say to the Government

House Leader, but it certainly isn't an ordinary or usual measure. By

legislation of this provincial Legislature, the number of Supreme Court Trial

Division and Court of Appeal Judges positions is set. The appointments are

federal. The salaries and benefits are paid for by the Federal Government. My

understanding is that the workload of the Court of Appeal is not such as to

warrant an increase in the number of judges. There are six full-time judges

positions on the Court of Appeal now,and in addition to the six full-time

positions there are semi-retired judges handling a partial workload. They are

referred to as supernumerary judges. Among the many benefits of federally

appointed judges is the opportunity upon serving for a period of years and

attaining the age of sixty-five to semi-retire and to continue to get full

salary and benefits until age seventy-five, at which time it is mandatory for

federally-appointed judges to retire. On retirement, federally-appointed judges

are entitled to a handsome indexed pension. The same arrangement applies to the

Supreme Court Trial Division.

There is no need for a provision to allow the Chief Justice

of Newfoundland who is the head Court of Appeal judge, or the Chief Justice of

the Trial Division, to move into a regular judge's position on the respective

court and have the complement increase by one. If the Chief Justice wants to

become a regular judge, then the Federal Government is perfectly entitled, and

this would be a logical choice, to choose from among the ranks of the regular

judges on that court, a new Chief Justice. There is public money at stake here.

Each of these judges' positions carries an annual salary of about $140,000 a

year. I would say to the Government House Leader that he hasn't provided an

explanation for this measure.

What the measure does in simple language is, in the case of

the Newfoundland Supreme Court Court of Appeal, increase the number of judges'

positions, full-time $140,000 a year judges' positions, from six to seven by

giving the Chief Justice the option of moving from the Chief Justice's position

to a regular judge's position. That seems to assume that the replacement for the

Chief Justice would be drawn from outside the Court, from perhaps the House of

Assembly or from private law practice.

Mr. Speaker, we have enough judges' positions to handle the

workload. If the Chief Justice at either level chooses to move into a regular

judge's position and free himself from the administrative responsibilities of

the Chief Justice's position, then it is up to the Federal Government to fill

the vacated position from choosing one of the other regular judges; or if the

office of Chief Justice is to be vacated for just a short period of time until

one of the regular judges retires, then the responsibilities of Chief Justice

may be carried on by the senior judge of the court.

So, Mr. Speaker, I don't see any need for this bill. The

minister hasn't provided a rationale and I think it will lead to an unnecessary

expenditure of scarce taxpayers' dollars. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I've had a look at the

legislation and I've had a look at the judges' act, and I'm a little bit

surprised, I guess, by the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. I guess

what she is saying is that if she were the Premier and this request had come

forth from the Court of Appeal, she would say no. That would put our Chief

Justice of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal in a

position different from that of, say, a federal tax court judge or a judge of

the federal court of Canada or the judges of other provinces who would have the

right to elect to stop being a Chief Justice and be an ordinary judge. I can

conceive of a number of circumstances where a Chief Justice may want to do that,

and the only option left would be to resign totally as a judge if one did not

wish to perform the duties of a Chief Justice. I don't think I would be prepared

to agree that we should restrict that position and the person in that position

in our courts in that way.

As I said, there are circumstances, there could be reasons of

health, could be reasons of other family demands, there could be other reasons

which would indicate a good reason for a person to cease to be Chief Judge or

Chief Justice, and continue on as an ordinary judge of the Court of Appeal and

the Trial Division in particular, there is a great deal of administrative

responsibility that the Chief Justice undertakes and it may not be that a person

who is in that position would want to or be able to continue in that, but would

be quite satisfied to continue as an ordinary judge; but I do agree with her on

one point.

The purpose, if one looks as

section 32, of the federal

Judges Act, the idea of it is that if you allow - what it seems to say is that

unless there is a provision for an additional judge being appointed, the Chief

Justice of a Court of Appeal or a Trial Division, can't elect down and the

purpose of that seems to be that the federal government wishes to reserve to

itself the right to choose who the Chief Justice is from whomever and if you

were to allow the Chief Justice of a province or a Trial Division to elect to

sit as an ordinary judge, then the federal government could only choose one of

the people who are already on the court and that may not be a circumstance which

the government -

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour (inaudible).

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

MR. ROBERTS: I also invite him to comment upon the

situation that there is no way that a sitting Chief Justice can become a puisne

judge of a court without retiring and hoping for re-appointment. There is no

way, under the Judges Act unless this amendment is adopted.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I said that at the outset that, if this amendment is not

passed, then the Chief Justice of Newfoundland could not become an ordinary

judge, that the election down if you will, is only permitted if there is an

additional judge provision provided under

section 32, and it seems, and here I

agree with the Leader of the Opposition, that the reasoning behind this federal

court act, not the amendment but the reasoning behind the federal court

to decide who the Chief Justice is, not just from amongst those who are already

sitting on the bench; they don't want to be restricted to choosing the former

Member for St. John's East for example, Judge Marshall, they might have to

choose amongst people whom they might not wish to appoint as the Chief Justice

or to the Court of Appeal. They may want to look farther afield; they may want

to look into the federal court, they may want to look to certain provincial

Legislatures, even this one, to choose whom the new Chief Justice may be and

that I think, would be the Leader of the Opposition's point, that perhaps this

is not a provision that's aimed at looking after the needs of our Court of

Appeal but is rather more of a make-room piece of legislation. However, I think

from my perspective that might be, that's a speculative position and of course,

as politicians we are entitled to speculate all we like.

I am prepared to wait and see, because in the meantime the

provision that is being offered by this Legislature, in other words to permit

our Chief Justice in the Court of Appeal and the Trial Division to have the same

right to elect down as do federal court judges, as do Tax Court of Canada

judges, as previously did County Court judges, we don't have them any more, as

other Superior Court Chiefs in other provinces and territories, have the right

to step down and become an ordinary judge on the bench of a Court of Appeal or

Superior Court, then I think that it is only right that our judges have the same

right to do that and the provision should be made for that.

I did raise the point the other day that there ought not to

be any confusion as to how long this additional position ought to be there. I

take it from the comments of the Government House Leader that an amendment will

make it clear that room for the additional judge would only last so long as the

electing Chief Justice continues to sit on the bench of the Court of Appeal or

the Trial Division. That makes sense too, because we don't want to slip in an

extra position without the requirement for it.

I appreciate what the Leader of the Opposition is saying

about the cost. It is a cost to the taxpayer of Canada which is a slightly

different taxpayer than the provincial taxpayer. At the same time, it is not

necessary that it be in fact a serious additional expense. The number of

supernumerary judges that might be required might diminish as a result of an

additional seat being there. I don't imagine that the actual difference will be

considerable in the long run in any event.

With those comments, and with the understanding that the

to decide from anybody they wish who is to be the new Chief Justice, that that

gives rise to speculation about the future of certain sitting politicians,

members perhaps of this House, on the government side. I think that is a matter

for speculation and ought not to be a reason why we would oppose the

legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I gather there is no other

member who wants to speak. Does my friend for Burin - Placentia West want to...?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I thank my hon. friend. I too would rather

listen to me than him, I say to him.

Mr. Speaker, I thank members for their contribution. The

House will not be surprised -

MR. TOBIN: Are you applying for the job (inaudible)?

MR. ROBERTS: No, I say to my friend, I'm not applying for

the job, and if offered will not accept.

Your Honour, let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that

at least four other provinces have legislation similar to this in their

judicature acts or equivalent: Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and

Saskatchewan. Let me also place on the record of the House that we are not doing

this because of the workload in the Court of Appeal. My understanding is the

Court of Appeal is very much up to date with its caseload. Its judgements are

being filed very quickly and that matters are being heard really as quickly as

counsel are able to appear and to argue. There is no need in my judgement to

expand the complement of the Court of Appeal.

The Trial Division, one hears suggestions from time to time

that we need extra judges, but every time I ask for statistics on the workload

and why we have what appears to be a bit of a backlog, I get answers back that

are not convincing, or at least don't convince me to ask my colleagues to

authorize an amendment to the complement of the Trial Division. We will deal

with that on its merits as it comes forward.

The comments made by my friend for St. John's East are much

more pertinent and much more to the point. I must reject his speculation as to

why this is being done. It is being done at the request of the - I can't say all

the judges, I don't know that, but the senior puisne judge has suggested this

might be done and we are of the mind that it should be done. As I said earlier,

it is our judgement in the present circumstances we should make this option

available to whoever from time to time may happen to hold the seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Justice Gushue, the senior puisne judge.

My hon. friend may not know what a puisne judge is, and for his sake I hope he

never has to find out. He has been very trying on occasion, but as far as I know

he has never been tried. If he had been tried I am sure he would have been found

wanting.

MR. TOBIN: If you can get the job, I am prepared to buy

the robe.

MR. ROBERTS: Prepared to do what?

AN HON. MEMBER: Buy the robe.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will hold the hon. gentleman

to it. He has just made an offer that if I were ever to get the job he would buy

the robe. All I can say is that I would wait for the cheque to clear the bank

before I put it on.

Your Honour, let me finally make the point that my friend

from St. John's East, my learned friend, quite rightly reminds us that it is the

appoint the Chief Justice of Newfoundland, as of every other province. In fact,

as he said, all judges are appointed by the Governor General in Council. My

understanding, in fact, the practice that has developed over the years is that

the right of nomination for the Chief Justice of all of the courts rests with

the Prime Minister. The Minister of Justice has, in his or her hands, the right

of nomination of other judges and the appointment power rests with the Cabinet

in the form of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

With that said, Sir, I move that the bill be read a second

time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Judicature Act," read

a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently by

leave. (Bill No. 20)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend from

Grand Bank.

Would you please be good enough to call the next order, Order

No. 18, and I won't even ask you to read the

long title of the bill once I can

find my speaking notes.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Architects Act, The Chartered Accountants Act, The Dieticians Act, The Embalmers

And Funeral Directors Act, The Engineers And Geoscientists Act, The Land

Surveyors Act, 1991, The Private Investigation And Security Services Act And The

Psychologists Act". (Bill No. 22).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my friend, the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology, has had a better offer than to spend the

afternoon with my friend from Grand Bank and my friend from Burin - Placentia

West. He is on his way to Twillingate to honour, to carry out, a speaking

engagement at the school there, the Geoffrey Shaw Collegiate, which I believe is

on Chapel Island, midway between New World and Twillingate Islands, G. Shaw

Collegiate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend from Green Bay, I knew

Geoffrey Shaw very well. He may still be alive, for all I know, a fine man. He

used to be the Pentecostal superintendent many years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: One heckle at a time, I say to my friend. I

got a heckle and then I will get a jekyll.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, my friend from St. Barbe, the

minister, said that he had a better invitation; I won't take it beyond that.

Mr. Speaker, the bill is one of these -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I thank my hon. friend for the vote of

confidence, and I appreciate it. As I said to him earlier, when we looked at the

internal economy, where he is not the most expensive member we have, it just

seems that way, that nobody in this House minds paying for him going to his

constituency, but paying for him to come back is what hurts.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation in Bill 22 seeks to amend a

number of statutes to give effect to the Internal Trade Agreement. Now that is

the agreement, as I am sure all members are aware - most of them no doubt have

read it from cover to cover, as I haven't - the Internal Trade Agreement was

signed by all First Ministers, including the Prime Minister, on July 18 of last

year. It will come into force on the first of July, 1995, eight weeks from now.

The objective of the Internal Trade Agreement is to reduce

and eliminate - to eliminate if we can, if not to reduce - the barriers to the

free movement of people, goods, services and investments in Canada. It is to try

to create within Canada a free trade zone, and by doing so the agreement will

establish a more open, efficient and stable domestic market, and that will

promote long-term job creation, business competitiveness and general economic

growth for the benefit of all parts of the country.

The goals of the agreement are consistent with out Strategic

Economic Plan. The plan recognizes the need for more liberalized trading

arrangements - that is a small `l' I say for the benefit of members on both

sides - with jurisdictions beyond our borders, both within Canada and

internationally. The enhanced access that we gain in external markets with

arrangements such as the Internal Trade Agreement will provide new business

opportunities for our firms and help our economy to grow and to provide new jobs

for our people.

I want to emphasize as well that the agreement provides

appropriate protection of Newfoundland's special circumstances and interests.

For example, I am very pleased to point out, my friend, the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology won, at the table, in the negotiations, two very

significant concessions and exemptions which are in the agreement.

The first, is that, for the first time all of the provinces

agreement, the legitimacy of the right embodied in the Fish Inspection Act, to

regulate the fish processing sector in the best interests of the Province. That

legislation goes back to the Smallwood years as I recollect, during my earlier

life, and it has now been accepted by the other provinces and it's ratified and

enshrined in the agreement.

We also have a special exemption on the brewing industry to

protect the locally brewed beers for a period of years. We would like to have

had a longer time but the reality of it is, that to get any time was a

considerable step forward. The agreement also recognizes and protects the

economic development programs and we believe that's essential and we, as a

Province, have the flexibility to mount innovative and economic and business

development initiatives such as the EDGE Program.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I would table the speaking

notes if the hon. gentleman want it. The agreement I believe has been tabled, if

not I could arrange to let him have a copy. It's about 150,000 pages thick I

would say to him, most of it unintelligible jargon of the sort that he and I as

lawyers produce from time to time, where, if we are not being paid by the word,

we are certainly not being paid by the clarity.

Mr. Speaker, let me carry on. All the signatories to the

a commitment to bring their statutes and regulations and to administer the

policies in the conformance with the provisions of the Internal Trade Agreement

by July 1, 1995. We have recently concluded our own review of Newfoundland's

statutes and have identified eight acts that required amendments.

Mr. Speaker, these are the eight acts that are listed in the

title of the bill and the amendments are set out in detail in the bill: The

Dieticians Act, -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend from Grand Bank, he asked

if I support free trade, the answer is: I would trade him freely for anything or

anybody at any time, any place any where.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, free thought, free speech.

Freedom is a great concept indeed.

The statutes that are to be amended are: The Dieticians Act;

The Embalmers And Funeral Directors Act; The Psychologists Act; The Engineers

And Geoscientists Act; The Architects Act; The Land Surveyors Act, The Private

Investigation And Security Services Act and The Chartered Accountants Act. All

of these acts have in them provisions which import residency requirements. The

amendments, are quite limited in scope. They pertain exclusively to the removal

of the residency requirements which are used by these professional groups in the

certification and registration of their members. The residency restrictions are

not consistent with the principles embodied in the Internal Trade Agreement,

which are to allow Canadians to move freely and to take advantage of employment

opportunities in any area of the country.

My friend from Green Bay asked about lawyers. The answer is,

there is nothing in the Law Society Act that restricts the right to practice law

to persons resident in this Province. Any qualified lawyer who wishes to

practice in this Province need only do two things: number one, attorn to the

jurisdiction of this Province and secondly, have in place adequate errors and

omissions insurance cover, and we have seen many, many instances of special

calls to the Bar. One of the biggest lawsuits fought out here has just been

decided by the Court of Appeal, the Husky-Bow Valley litigation at the appelate

level, Judge Cameron's decision which was for the unanimous court was filed the

other day, and my recollection is that of the five parties in that case, three

or four had brought in lawyers from outside Newfoundland, all of whom were

entitled to practice here because they met the requirements of the Bar here. The

lawyers years ago had restrictive legislation but the Supreme Court of Canada

took care of that in a case called Black and Company, an Alberta case that went

to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker, the only exception to the principle of residency

that is permitted by the Internal Trade Agreement is where residency plays a

legitimate role in the development of a province's labour force to meet a

specific economic development objective. This means the provinces will still be

allowed to maintain measures such as the Atlantic Accord which gives first

consideration to Newfoundlanders in the offshore petroleum industry. I emphasize

as well, that these amendments are focused exclusively on the removal of

discriminatory residency practices and will not in any way adversely affect the

ability of these groups to maintain professional standards and qualifications

that are essential to ensuring the integrity of their professional

organizations.

Mr. Speaker, the Internal Trade Agreement represents yet

another tangible step in the implementation of the policies outlined in the

Strategic Economic Plan, and the government is confident that these amendments

will have a positive economic impact on Newfoundland and Labrador. I move the

bill now be read a second time.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I will speak for a few moments

on the bill. I think essentially it recognizes that the named professional

groups should be open to representatives of those groups, qualified individuals

from other provinces carrying out their profession in the Province of

Newfoundland.

I suppose I can see why in certain instances it might make

sense to bring someone else in from outside the Province if you had a mind to. I

mean, you might want to bring Eddie Greenspan in to defend you in the Supreme

Court for a criminal matter, although I'm not sure I can see why you would want

to bring someone in from outside the Province to bury you.

MR. CAREEN: The Embalmers' Act is the way to bring home

every mother's son.

MR. HARRIS: I'm not sure you would want to bring in an

embalmer from Toronto to bury you, Mr. Speaker, or as the Member for Placentia

says, that is perhaps the way to bring home every mother's son, in a box.

I do say I suppose it may well be that some enterprising

individuals in the embalmers' trade or the funeral directors' trade in Ontario

or Nova Scotia or perhaps in North Sydney might want to open up a branch in Port

aux Basque and carry on the trade of funeral director or embalmer in the town of

Port aux Basque from their location in Sydney. That may be a possibility, or it

may be the other way, that somebody in this Province carrying on a business in

Port aux Basque might want to carry on a branch of their business in North

Sydney or in Nova Scotia, or anywhere else in Canada for that matter. Presumably

reciprocal legislation is being enacted in the Province of Nova Scotia and other

provinces which are signatory to this agreement to allow the professionals of

this Province to carry out their profession or trade in other provinces.

On that, the principle of this legislation, I have no

quarrel, provided of course the individuals who are exercising their rights

under these acts have the professional qualifications and the public is

protected by the relevant provision for insurances for negligence or errors and

omissions. With that, Mr. Speaker, I endorse the principle of the bill and offer

my support at second reading.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have

a few remarks on this bill which is basically to implement the internal Canadian

free trade agreement signed by the First Ministers of Canada some time ago,

which I'm told comes into effect July this year.

In general terms, free trade is the way of the world these

days and such is the case I guess internally in Canada as well as with our

trading partners on the international scene. One problem I had with the

government's approach to free trade before there was a formal agreement is that

this particular government did, on a number of occasions, volunteer certain free

trade initiatives in the Canadian confederation where it was doubtful that we

had the numbers of people or companies that could compete effectively in the

context of the general Canadian economy. Certainly with the same effectiveness

of other mainland Canadian companies which could come into our market and

compete.

The realities forced these initiatives upon us, but I had

some problems in the early going with this government volunteering sectors of

the Newfoundland economy to go into the Canadian whole before it became a

necessity. What that meant was that some companies which may not have had the

capacity to compete nationally, were nonetheless, sort of volunteered by this

government to so do before their time.

I realize that one of the prices for being in a nation state,

in today's world, is a degree of internal free trade but there were times when I

thought the Wells Government was bending over backwards to accommodate national

goals and there were times I had serious concerns as to whether or not, in net

terms, the Newfoundland business community would be the loser in some of these

initiatives. Whether or not they are the winner or the loser in some of these

initiatives, as I